Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Stefan Hahn <HAHN@***.EDU>
Subject:	Foci?
Date:	Wed, 6 Oct 1993 11:41:25 -0700

Message no. 1 Okay, there are magical swords (Blades w/ anchored manipulation spells)
and magical armor (Ditto for Armor)
and flying carpets (ditto with Levitate Object)
and healing potions (ditto w/ Treat)
and potions of Strength, et al (ditto w/ Inc. Attribute)
and enough dragons to keep your average knight busy.
so:
How about Sentient Magical Items? (I suppose we'd be talking about a spirit
perma-bonded to an item...say a fire elemental and a Flamethrower = a really
nasty Flametongue...)

HAHN@***.EDU ______________ __ ______________ President and
\ \ ( \ / / CEO,
Batteries not \ \/ / /
Included. Some \________ ________/ Thwaptronics Ltd.
Assembly may be \ /
Required. Your \ __ __ / "Building a
Thwappage may vary. \__--^ / \ ^--__/ Better Carp--
Carp may settle during \ /^ / \ ^\ / For a Better
Shipping. /^ / \ ^\ Tomorrow."
Please allow 6-8 \ // \\ /
Picoseconds for delivery. \ / / \ \ / Manufacturers of
\ \ / / Munchkin-B-Gon! (tm)
\ / One spray (near an open flame)
\ / ends munchkins' character
\/ sheets forever!

From:	SHADE <MFN6430@*****.TAMU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: foci
Date:	Mon, 7 Feb 1994 10:39:17 -0600

Message no. 2 >] >>4. Create the ally, "lock" it into the Unique Enchantment aspect
>] >> of the foci thereby raising its physical attributes by the rating.
>]
>] No, see above, plus a homunculus is a statue. That means it must be in the
>] form of a creature, not a weapon.
>]
> First off, the book definitely states you can create a unique
> enchantment that adds its rating to the physical attributes
> of the ally (I will find a citation if ya'd like).
>
> Second, I think the notion of a statue is somewhat vague-
> so then this razor sharp solid metal sword shaped thing
> is a statue.
>
> But before I debate either of these issues any further, I
> better go read my Grim II to see if it was changed from edition
> to edition again. :)

The homonculus is the unique enchantment they are refering to. You
put the spirit in the body to give it the extra stats. You could put it in a
sword I suppose. Problems with this are: Swords can't move, Swords can't see
so they can't cast spells. You cant hide an ally with an astral quest so people
can still drop spells on you from astral space. You have turned your ally into
a power focus. Real waste of that much Karma. See above for sense link power.

Isbin and Thurmite

From:	Justin Pinnow <jpinnow@***.IM.MED.UMICH.EDU>
Subject:	Foci
Date:	Fri, 2 Jun 1995 12:32:13 -0400

Message no. 3 I have a couple of specific questions about foci.

1. Are foci cumulative? (i.e. are two "level" 2 foci roughly
equivalent to a "level" 4 focus of the same type, or do foci just
default to the most powerful of any appropriate type(s)?

2. When one's focis are inactive (turned off), is there any way to
detect them in someone's aura? (I am aware that if they are active
(turned on) you can ground a spell through them, but can't do it when
they are inactive--not sure if this makes them noticeable in someone's
aura when turned off or not.) Are they detectable as magical foci when
being assensed even when they are turned off?

3. Also, since you can't astrally perceive through material (i.e. you
must astrally project through a wall before you can astrally perceive
what's on the other side of it), if a mage was wearing a foci or spell
lock that was inactive (turned off) and worn under clothing (a pendant
underneath a shirt, etc.) would someone astrally perceiving be able to
detect that said mage was wearing any magical foci at all?

Thanks for the help. I am trying to determine how much a mage can
"hide" the fact that he is indeed a mage while wearing foci. I know
turning foci and locks off keeps projecting mages from grounding a
spell through the foci (or lock) from the astral, but I would like to
know just how well you can the fact that you are wearing foci.

Thanks!!

Justin :)

From:	Duke Diener <DukeDragon@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Fri, 2 Jun 1995 17:16:58 -0400

Message no. 4 Justin Pinnow asked about the cummulative nature of foci and thier
concealability when inactive.

IMHO foci are not additive. The description of foci says that their value is
added to the mages (appropriate) rating. So if you have a power foci 2 and a
power foci 3. You go to caluculate your magic rating, say a base of 5. You
add 2 to your base of 5 to get a 7 from the PF2, then you add 3 to your base
(because the power foci only work with your base rating not your effective
rating) and you get an 8. This may sound a bit chicken but we all know it
would be relatively easy and cheap to collect 8 power foci 1s, and I'm sure
no one wants a mage running around with a power foci 8 (effective) that he
didn't have to really earn (I wouldn't want one in my game period).

The answer to your second question is yes the inactive foci are visible
astrally, but as you correctly stated they cannot be used to ground spells
through.

The third part is a bit more interesting. I would have to say that yes they
would be visible otherwise by extrapolation you could say that I could mask
my own aura by completely covering myself with clothing and say a motorcycle
helmet with a reflective lens. Let's just say that the aura radiates around
the individual and the foci at a range that would be impossible to cover with
conventional cloathing.

After a little bit of thought that is how I would rule in my game and should
in no way indicate that someone who chose differently would be wrong.

Duke

From:	Gary Carroll <gary@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Fri, 2 Jun 1995 15:15:06 -0700

Message no. 5 >>Justin Pinnow asked about the cummulative nature of foci
>>and thier concealability when inactive.
>Duke writes:
>IMHO foci are not additive. The description of foci says
>that their value is added to the mages (appropriate) rating.
>So if you have a power foci 2 and a power foci 3. You go
>to caluculate your magic rating, say a base of 5. You
>add 2 to your base of 5 to get a 7 from the PF2, then you
>add 3 to your base (because the power foci only work with
>your base rating not your effective rating) and you get an 8.
>This may sound a bit chicken but we all know it would be
>relatively easy and cheap to collect 8 power foci 1s, and I'm
>sure no one wants a mage running around with a power foci
>8 (effective) that he didn't have to really earn (I wouldn't want
>one in my game period).
MEEEEPPPPP -
sorry but all foci are cumulative. The 2 & 3 = 5 the problems
with this is that it's easier to destroy a smaller foci and.....
you can only have bonded as many items as you have
natural (non spell augmented) Intelligence. The idea is
if you pay to bond them you get the benefits.
i.e. int 6 = 2 power foci + 4 spell locks or some combination
there of ... *(The rules actually states that you can have as
many *FOCI* as you have Intelligence)* as far as initiation
you can mask only as many foci/locks as you have
initiation. so if you are only an initiate level 1 you can only
mask 1 of the two foci... (another minus to having lots of small
foci)
that doesn't mean you have to run it this way though...

>The answer to your second question is yes the inactive foci
>are visible astrally, but as you correctly stated they cannot
>be used to ground spells through.
YEP... - visible like everything else.

>The third part is a bit more interesting. I would have to say that
>yes they would be visible otherwise by extrapolation you could
>say that I could mask my own aura by completely covering
>myself with clothing and say a motorcycle helmet with a
>reflective lens. Let's just say that the aura radiates around
>the individual and the foci at a range that would be impossible
>to cover with conventional clothing.

Masking your own aura does not mask any foci you have on you
and covering an active foci would not help, although I would
rule that covering an inactive foci would be possible (but not
to a detect magic spell) - I would make the person looking
do a astral perception to look making the conceal something
like a 10 - foci level. *sorry just thought it up so I added it*

>After a little bit of thought that is how I would rule in my game
>and should in no way indicate that someone who chose
>differently would be wrong.

*hey your the GM - just make sure you characters know before-hand
*so they don't spend 10 points to bond a foci then loose those
points when they bond the level 3 foci...

Thanks Gary
Geek Code v2.1: GCS/O d++(--) H>++ s-:>- g+(-) !p(1) au+>++
a-(?) w+(++/-) v(--/++) C++$ A++++/X++$/V++ P+++(-) L 3 N++(-)
E--- K- W+ M-(--) V-(--) -po+(po) Y+ t+ 5- !j R++(+) G(') tv b- D++(D)
B(!) e+>+++ u++(**) h f+(++) r n-(++) y?

From:	Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Sun, 4 Jun 1995 17:11:06 +0200

Message no. 6 > I have a couple of specific questions about foci.

Cool :)

> 1. Are foci cumulative? (i.e. are two "level" 2 foci roughly
> equivalent to a "level" 4 focus of the same type, or do foci just
> default to the most powerful of any appropriate type(s)?

Foci are cumulative, 2 force 2 power foci will raise your magic by
4 points and give you 4 extra dice. They resist attacks separately
however.

> 2. When one's focis are inactive (turned off), is there any way to
> detect them in someone's aura? (I am aware that if they are active
> (turned on) you can ground a spell through them, but can't do it when
> they are inactive--not sure if this makes them noticeable in someone's
> aura when turned off or not.) Are they detectable as magical foci when
> being assensed even when they are turned off?

Active foci are like lighthouses in the astral, practically screaming
"YOOOOO come and GEEET MEEEE!" :) We like to compare them to gravity
wells. Have you ever seen a vectorised image of a gravity well ?
Anyway so much for active foci, deactivated foci still have a presence
remember that they are bonded to the magician, that means that they
aura is part of the magicians aura. Deactivated foci are not that
easy to see, but they are still visible. In other words they have some
sort of concealability.

> 3. Also, since you can't astrally perceive through material (i.e. you
> must astrally project through a wall before you can astrally perceive
> what's on the other side of it), if a mage was wearing a foci or spell
> lock that was inactive (turned off) and worn under clothing (a pendant
> underneath a shirt, etc.) would someone astrally perceiving be able to
> detect that said mage was wearing any magical foci at all?

As I said bonded foci are a part of the magicians aura, so someone
scanning you for magical items will see their presence in your aura
no matter where you hide them.

> Thanks for the help. I am trying to determine how much a mage can
> "hide" the fact that he is indeed a mage while wearing foci. I know
> turning foci and locks off keeps projecting mages from grounding a
> spell through the foci (or lock) from the astral, but I would like to
> know just how well you can the fact that you are wearing foci.

glad I could help.

--
GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++$S++L++$>++++ L++>+++ E--- N+ h*(+)
W(+)(---) M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) f+ r- n!(-) y?

Moderator of alt.c00ld00z (coolness in general)

From:	Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Sun, 4 Jun 1995 17:17:19 +0200

Message no. 7 > IMHO foci are not additive. The description of foci says that their value is
> added to the mages (appropriate) rating. So if you have a power foci 2 and a
> power foci 3. You go to caluculate your magic rating, say a base of 5. You
> add 2 to your base of 5 to get a 7 from the PF2, then you add 3 to your base
> (because the power foci only work with your base rating not your effective
> rating) and you get an 8. This may sound a bit chicken but we all know it
> would be relatively easy and cheap to collect 8 power foci 1s, and I'm sure
> no one wants a mage running around with a power foci 8 (effective) that he
> didn't have to really earn (I wouldn't want one in my game period).

Yeah right, who would pay 5 karma for a force 1 focus dude? Do you know what
that magician with the 8 force 1 foci is. He is an intelligence 8 fool :)
He has 8 grounding gates on him, their all have a puny force of 1 and that
means that they are incapable of defending themselves (cast -boom, cast -boom :)
Not to mention that he needs multiple complex actions to activate them.

Sammie: What you doin dude, we'r getin fried heer!!!
Mage: I am activating my 4th focus now, It'll only take a couple more
complex actions.
BLAST - other mage grounds fireball - BLAST

:)

--
GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++$S++L++$>++++ L++>+++ E--- N+ h*(+)
W(+)(---) M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) f+ r- n!(-) y?

Moderator of alt.c00ld00z (coolness in general)

From:	"A.P. O'KEEFE" <IIS3APO@*******.NOVELL.LEEDS.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Sun, 4 Jun 1995 17:05:01 GMT

Message no. 8 Jani Fikouras:
> Yeah right, who would pay 5 karma for a force 1 focus dude? Do you know what
> that magician with the 8 force 1 foci is. He is an intelligence 8 fool :)
> He has 8 grounding gates on him, their all have a puny force of 1 and that
> means that they are incapable of defending themselves (cast -boom, cast -boom :)
> Not to mention that he needs multiple complex actions to activate them.
>
> Sammie: What you doin dude, we'r getin fried heer!!!
> Mage: I am activating my 4th focus now, It'll only take a couple more
> complex actions.
> BLAST - other mage grounds fireball - BLAST

Second that. In my last long running campeign the groups munchkin
(there's alaways one) was obssessed with the apparent advantegs of
multaple foci. As a dirrect result he went through three mages in as
many adventures leaving nothing but serries of freshly cooked corpses
and a hefty amount of colateral dammage to mark his pressence. The
other players eventualy forced him to play a decker (which they
figured was saffer).

From:	Justin Pinnow <jpinnow@***.IM.MED.UMICH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Mon, 5 Jun 1995 10:59:42 -0400

Message no. 9 >> Thanks for the help. I am trying to determine how much a mage can
>> "hide" the fact that he is indeed a mage while wearing foci. I know
>> turning foci and locks off keeps projecting mages from grounding a
>> spell through the foci (or lock) from the astral, but I would like to
>> know just how well you can the fact that you are wearing foci.

> glad I could help.

Thanks! It made things pretty simple actually....you can't ever
completely hide any type of bonded focus. They may not be as blatently
obvious when turned off, but they are a part of your aura....even if
they aren't on your person (except for locks...which can't be removed
without breaking the bond). Without masking, it would not be possible
to "hide" your foci completele....you would just have to hope that the
astrally perceiving mage/adept isn't good enough to discern them in
your aura. (This type of information *may* be too specific to
determine in someone's aura unless the perceiver has an astral
perception skill....etc.).

Thanks a lot for the clarifications! :)

> Yeah right, who would pay 5 karma for a force 1 focus dude? Do you
>know what that magician with the 8 force 1 foci is. He is an
>intelligence 8 fool :) He has 8 grounding gates on him, their all
>have a puny force of 1 and that means that they are incapable of
>defending themselves (cast -boom, cast -boom :) Not to mention that
>he needs multiple complex actions to activate them.

> Sammie: What you doin dude, we'r getin fried heer!!!
> Mage: I am activating my 4th focus now, It'll only take a couple
> more complex actions.
> BLAST - other mage grounds fireball - BLAST

Yeah, I think any mildly creative GM would accept this reasoning as
more than enough justification to allow cumulative foci. ;) Thanks
for your input!

>Second that. In my last long running campeign the groups munchkin
>(there's alaways one) was obssessed with the apparent advantegs of
>multaple foci.

Well, in my case, it comes down to fear of GM wrath more than
Munchinism. ;) I would in no way shape or form ever want to be
walking around with a focus of level 6 or higher....not to mention
lower level foci are easier to locate (theoretically) than higher level
ones. With the disadvantages of using multiple foci mentioned
above...I feel safer (heh heh, in *this* campaign??!!--yeah, right ;))
wearing say two level two foci than one level 4...less likely to have
the GM succomb to the temptation of "hmm...that's a mighty powerful
foci you've got there....(insert magical ambush of choice here)" ;)

Actually, I haven't found my GM to be *that* bad as of yet....but I can
see the tell-tale signs in his eyes sometimes ;)

Thanks!

Justin :)

From:	TopCat <topcat@******.net>
Subject:	Foci
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 1996 22:48:11 -0600

Message no. 10 I am just wondering why so many beginning spellcasters go out and drop the
nuyen and force points for power foci and other foci.

1) The resource commitment - A or B resources if you want anything useful,
which means C, D, and E have to account for race, stats, and skills. That
makes for one feeble character.

2) The force point commitment - Have to bond the damn things which means
less spells at the start of the game. Variety and power in spells is much
more important than 1 or 2 extra points of magic.

3) The astral link - Why would you ever want a direct channel to you from
the astral?

4) The thievery aspect - A minor focus is worth more on the street than a
truckload of Panther Assault Cannons, but which would you rather have
backing you up?

5) The crutch - Why risk focus-addiction over a power focus when you can get
multiple locks instead on useful spells. I know, when they're active
they're astral targets too. But I'd feel a lot better knowing that every
sustained spell I have is waiting for me at the merest thought as opposed to
knowing I have 2 extra dice for my fireball spell. (spell locks are
invisible after they're made too, which is a nice little bonus and cuts #4
out of the picture).

------------------------------------------------------------
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// /// /// /// //// //// //
//// ///// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// ////// /////
/// ///// /// /// /// /////// ////// //////
// ///// /// /// //////// /// /// /// ////// ///////
/ ///// /// //////// /// /// ////// ////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
------------------------------------------------------------
Bob "TopCat" Ooton <topcat@******.net>
------------------------------------------------------------
"Outside they are gathering and their fangs are bared, for
the bigger your fangs, the bigger your share."
-- Sol Invictus "Here Am I"
------------------------------------------------------------

From:	gaustin@********.com
Subject:	Foci
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 1996 18:02:59 -0400 (EDT)

Message no. 11 Howdy,
Starting off, I'd just like to say that I think this mailing list
is great, kudos to everyone who makes this place work. :)

Recently, one of the players in my game (who is really too
inquisitive for his own good :) asked if I had considered any rules about
using a Tattoo as a Foci. He and I glanced through the Grimoire II<sp?> and
Awakenings to see if there were any possible rules that could apply to
that. I didn't see any rules on either side of the issue so I decided to
see what y'all think about it, and/or if anyone else had found a rule
that forbidded it. Thanks in advance.

- Charlie

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Charlie @ Btech (all of 'em) Kerlin Kerensky @ Btech 3010
Head Director, Btech 3010 "The Clan Wars" Khan, Clan Coyote

[Normal snappy quote snipped on account of the fuckin' CDA.]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=gaustin@********.com-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

From:	Hairy Smurf <ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 1996 18:49:43 -0400 (EDT)

Message no. 12 At 18:02 4/23/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Howdy,
> Starting off, I'd just like to say that I think this mailing list
>is great, kudos to everyone who makes this place work. :)
>
> Recently, one of the players in my game (who is really too
>inquisitive for his own good :) asked if I had considered any rules about
>using a Tattoo as a Foci. He and I glanced through the Grimoire II<sp?> and
>Awakenings to see if there were any possible rules that could apply to
>that. I didn't see any rules on either side of the issue so I decided to
>see what y'all think about it, and/or if anyone else had found a rule
>that forbidded it. Thanks in advance.
>
>
>- Charlie

I don't know of any rules against it. I'm suprised I didn't think of it
before. I also play Rifts. The have Tattooed Warriors who use magical tattos
to give them powers. I don't see why it shouldnm't work here also.

Sasquatch
(The technican formerly known as BLAIR)

------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Support Bacteria! |
| It's the only culture some people have. |
| |
| ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu |
| tech@*******.adelphi.edu blair@*****.adelphi.edu |
| No Website (yet) |
------------------------------------------------------------------

From:	"Sedah Drol" <CCRODRIG@****.indstate.edu>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 1996 17:35:36 EST

Message no. 13 > Howdy,
> Starting off, I'd just like to say that I think this mailing list
> is great, kudos to everyone who makes this place work. :)
>
> Recently, one of the players in my game (who is really too
> inquisitive for his own good :) asked if I had considered any rules about
> using a Tattoo as a Foci. He and I glanced through the Grimoire II<sp?> and
> Awakenings to see if there were any possible rules that could apply to
> that. I didn't see any rules on either side of the issue so I decided to
> see what y'all think about it, and/or if anyone else had found a rule
> that forbidded it. Thanks in advance.

Interesting....
There are no rules against it that I can find.
Let's see foci at the very least require oricalcum and a physical
component. There are two ways to look at this.
1) the persons body is the physcial component
2) or the ink used to make the tatoo is the physical component.
Personally I would go with the ink idea, that way you could make it
from scratch yourself.
I would say that it would be possible.

---Sedah Drol
This is a test.....
For the next several lines there will be a test signature.
If this were an actual .sig it would be proceeded with:
a Geek Code script
a Home Page
a quote
and any other information I wish to disclose.
Repeat this was only a test....

From:	Benjamin <benjamin@*****.com>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 1996 16:50:33 PDT

Message no. 14 > > Howdy,
> > Starting off, I'd just like to say that I think this mailing list
> > is great, kudos to everyone who makes this place work. :)
> >
> > Recently, one of the players in my game (who is really too
> > inquisitive for his own good :) asked if I had considered any rules about
> > using a Tattoo as a Foci. He and I glanced through the Grimoire II<sp?>
and
> > Awakenings to see if there were any possible rules that could apply to
> > that. I didn't see any rules on either side of the issue so I decided to
> > see what y'all think about it, and/or if anyone else had found a rule
> > that forbidded it. Thanks in advance.
>
> Interesting....
> There are no rules against it that I can find.
> Let's see foci at the very least require oricalcum and a physical
> component. There are two ways to look at this.

No, it doesn't require oricalcum.

Page, 25, Grimthingy:"Just about anything can serve as the telesma: a
wooden wand, a jeweld charm, a weapon, a car, and so on." (telesma
being the phys. component)

How many cars do you know of that are made with oricalcum?

> 1) the persons body is the physcial component
> 2) or the ink used to make the tatoo is the physical component.
> Personally I would go with the ink idea, that way you could make it
> from scratch yourself.
> I would say that it would be possible.

I don't think ink would work... how about just sfticking a /dev/focus
under his skin? like the sub-dermal drug release thingie...

>
> ---Sedah Drol
> This is a test.....
> For the next several lines there will be a test signature.
> If this were an actual .sig it would be proceeded with:
> a Geek Code script
> a Home Page
> a quote
> and any other information I wish to disclose.
> Repeat this was only a test....

From:	Hairy Smurf <ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 1996 21:30:53 -0400 (EDT)

Message no. 15 At 16:50 4/23/96 PDT, you wrote:

[SNIP]
>
>Page, 25, Grimthingy:"Just about anything can serve as the telesma: a
>wooden wand, a jeweld charm, a weapon, a car, and so on." (telesma
>being the phys. component)
>
>How many cars do you know of that are made with oricalcum?
>
>> 1) the persons body is the physcial component
>> 2) or the ink used to make the tatoo is the physical component.
>> Personally I would go with the ink idea, that way you could make it
>> from scratch yourself.
>> I would say that it would be possible.
>
>I don't think ink would work... how about just sfticking a /dev/focus
>under his skin? like the sub-dermal drug release thingie...
>

Ink isn't a thing? I don't see why it shouldn't work. Tattoing could even be
used as part of an ordeal for initiation. I've got it. The tattooing is part
of a ritual that give the tattoo the ability to permently have the spell
effects attached to it. Just like a regular foci. Just make the creation of
the "magical" ink difficult or rarely known. (To avoid munchies you may want
to make it attrubute debilitating if the fail a opposed willpower test vs
the spell level to absorb the magical energies.) I think it's a great idea.
I think I said that already. Didn't I?

Sasquatch
(The technican formerly known as BLAIR)

------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Support Bacteria! |
| It's the only culture some people have. |
| |
| ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu |
| tech@*******.adelphi.edu blair@*****.adelphi.edu |
| No Website (yet) |
------------------------------------------------------------------

From:	MENARD Steve <menars@***.UMontreal.CA>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 1996 21:41:45 -0400 (EDT)

Message no. 16 On Tue, 23 Apr 1996 gaustin@********.com wrote:

> Howdy,
> Starting off, I'd just like to say that I think this mailing list
> is great, kudos to everyone who makes this place work. :)
>
> Recently, one of the players in my game (who is really too
> inquisitive for his own good :) asked if I had considered any rules about
> using a Tattoo as a Foci. He and I glanced through the Grimoire II<sp?> and
> Awakenings to see if there were any possible rules that could apply to
> that. I didn't see any rules on either side of the issue so I decided to
> see what y'all think about it, and/or if anyone else had found a rule
> that forbidded it. Thanks in advance.
>

I don't know about the rules, but I would not let that happen in
my game. A foci has to be an item, something tangible. For that, your own
skin cannot be used (it still part of you), and the ink is far from being
enough.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- |\_/| Still The One and Only Wolfbane! ---
--- |o o| " Hey! Why ya lookin' at me so weird? Ain't ya 'ver seen a ---
--- \ / decker witha horn ?" --- Scy, Troll decker with a CC ---
--- 0 Steve Menard menars@***.UMontreal.Ca ---
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:	Tom Pendergrast <pendergr@***.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 1996 18:52:50 -0700 (PDT)

Message no. 17 >
> I don't know about the rules, but I would not let that happen in
> my game. A foci has to be an item, something tangible. For that, your own
> skin cannot be used (it still part of you), and the ink is far from being
> enough.

AFAIK, a focus has to be something that could be taken away. Any
'Champions' players out there know what I'm talking about. A magical
process where you make a spell permanent on yourself, that can't be taken
away, (like these tatoos would do) is more along the lines of quickening.

---Tom---

From:	seb@***.ripco.com (Sebastian Wiers)
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 1996 21:17:48 -0500 (CDT)

Message no. 18 >
> On Tue, 23 Apr 1996 gaustin@********.com wrote:
>
> > Howdy,
> > Starting off, I'd just like to say that I think this mailing list
> > is great, kudos to everyone who makes this place work. :)
> >
> > Recently, one of the players in my game (who is really too
> > inquisitive for his own good :) asked if I had considered any rules about
> > using a Tattoo as a Foci. He and I glanced through the Grimoire II<sp?>
and
> > Awakenings to see if there were any possible rules that could apply to
> > that. I didn't see any rules on either side of the issue so I decided to
> > see what y'all think about it, and/or if anyone else had found a rule
> > that forbidded it. Thanks in advance.
> >
>
> I don't know about the rules, but I would not let that happen in
> my game. A foci has to be an item, something tangible. For that, your own
> skin cannot be used (it still part of you), and the ink is far from being
> enough.

Well, since you have to perform a long enchanting ritual on a Focus,
getting a focus tatoo could be very inconvienient. However, in our campaign
we already have focus spurs (which were enchanted, then used to replace
standard spur blades), and more interestingly, tatoo talismans. If you
remreber the talisman geas, well we let tatoo's fill that role. However, if
the tatoo is destroyed, yer screwed- a tatoo talisman is very hard to replace,
as you need the original artist or maybe his aprentice- never has come up.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --- |\_/| Still The One and Only Wolfbane! ---
> --- |o o| " Hey! Why ya lookin' at me so weird? Ain't ya 'ver seen a ---
> --- \ / decker witha horn ?" --- Scy, Troll decker with a CC ---
> --- 0 Steve Menard menars@***.UMontreal.Ca ---
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

--
--Seb

From:	seb@***.ripco.com (Sebastian Wiers)
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 1996 21:35:33 -0500 (CDT)

Message no. 19 >
> > Howdy,
> > Starting off, I'd just like to say that I think this mailing list
> > is great, kudos to everyone who makes this place work. :)
> >
> > Recently, one of the players in my game (who is really too
> > inquisitive for his own good :) asked if I had considered any rules about
> > using a Tattoo as a Foci. He and I glanced through the Grimoire II<sp?>
and
> > Awakenings to see if there were any possible rules that could apply to
> > that. I didn't see any rules on either side of the issue so I decided to
> > see what y'all think about it, and/or if anyone else had found a rule
> > that forbidded it. Thanks in advance.
>
> Interesting....
> There are no rules against it that I can find.
> Let's see foci at the very least require oricalcum and a physical
> component. There are two ways to look at this.
> 1) the persons body is the physcial component
> 2) or the ink used to make the tatoo is the physical component.
> Personally I would go with the ink idea, that way you could make it
> from scratch yourself.
> I would say that it would be possible.
>
> ---Sedah Drol

Or, choice three:
The tatooing process is the enchanting process and vice versa. This meens you
sit there for amonth or so while some enchanter mutters, cooks up wierd inks,
and jams them under you skin with sharp, but primitive, instruments. If you
can find a yak mage instead of a shamen, the work might be mnore modern, and
the painkillers more pure....
A mage with enchanting and apropriate tatooing skill could do this on
himself, but you couldn't just get drunk one night and get a tatoo spell lock,
imho.
> This is a test.....
> For the next several lines there will be a test signature.
> If this were an actual .sig it would be proceeded with:
> a Geek Code script
> a Home Page
> a quote
> and any other information I wish to disclose.
> Repeat this was only a test....
>

--
--Seb

From:	ratinox@******.gweep.net (Stainless Steel Rat)
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Wed, 24 Apr 1996 03:10:07 GMT

Message no. 20 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Tue, 23 Apr 1996 18:52:50 -0700 (PDT), Tom Pendergrast
<pendergr@***.EDU> wrote:

>AFAIK, a focus has to be something that could be taken away. Any
>'Champions' players out there know what I'm talking about.

Two completely different game mechanics, from two completely different
game systems. The focus limitation in Champions means something rather
different from foci in Shadowrun. And see my previous comments on
implanted foci.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMX2bN56VRH7BJMxHAQFkvAP/TycZ0Dla7ffBN/JEmUNhxfr3vGeopU9k
oTaYF+KNVibL65QroBkZrlBU0vQx69EaJ6U0XG/P4joL8lo4E7iXp+Ufi5FhfBKM
J6ycz5g+NcnTzpLjl0HX9uh1rtvUWqEH4OsMboQpZOPerdI8XXnERXiLiFq2dZmg
/E4Lj5Xa5uI=
=vav4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Oh, your standard-issue Big Gun. Equipment Division made it, and now it's
part of my private collection. I was late because I... had to get it.

From:	ratinox@******.gweep.net (Stainless Steel Rat)
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Wed, 24 Apr 1996 03:10:03 GMT

Message no. 21 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Tue, 23 Apr 1996 18:02:59 -0400 (EDT), gaustin@********.com wrote:

> Recently, one of the players in my game (who is really too
>inquisitive for his own good :) asked if I had considered any rules about
>using a Tattoo as a Foci.

Point one: the singular is "focus", the plural is "foci".

Point two: yes, you can have implated foci. Just remember that when some
astral magician decides to ground out a fireball spell on your insides and
you cannot drop the focus he is targeting.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMX2aq56VRH7BJMxHAQHjbgQAiYYKhol6W1SY5xRi8N6PefHl7Oy4OBHg
ReQJozRIClI0mkd4gu6/hfYKeRpbW3UbV4am4RRfvBXaohRYpy9rFt81LPTEx0+X
kZ7xll9K4BCrQ8SsaypM43h80uj2v8Fjnx9gpMh7jRUBUKWWELENtnEL/eIUBPZb
rIa9x44mxlE=
=2GzO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Oh, your standard-issue Big Gun. Equipment Division made it, and now it's
part of my private collection. I was late because I... had to get it.

From:	Hairy Smurf <ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Wed, 24 Apr 1996 00:22:16 -0400 (EDT)

Message no. 22 At 18:52 4/23/96 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> I don't know about the rules, but I would not let that happen in
>> my game. A foci has to be an item, something tangible. For that, your own
>> skin cannot be used (it still part of you), and the ink is far from being
>> enough.
>
>AFAIK, a focus has to be something that could be taken away. Any
>'Champions' players out there know what I'm talking about. A magical
>process where you make a spell permanent on yourself, that can't be taken
>away, (like these tatoos would do) is more along the lines of quickening.
>
> ---Tom---
>

Not true. Ever seen what a scapel can do?
:)

Sasquatch
(The technican formerly known as BLAIR)

------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Support Bacteria! |
| It's the only culture some people have. |
| |
| ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu |
| tech@*******.adelphi.edu blair@*****.adelphi.edu |
| No Website (yet) |
------------------------------------------------------------------

From:	"A Halliwell" <u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Wed, 24 Apr 1996 11:29:53 +0100 (BST)

Message no. 23 |Interesting....
|There are no rules against it that I can find.
|Let's see foci at the very least require oricalcum and a physical
|component. There are two ways to look at this.
|1) the persons body is the physcial component
|2) or the ink used to make the tatoo is the physical component.
|Personally I would go with the ink idea, that way you could make it
|from scratch yourself.
|I would say that it would be possible.

Orichalcum is not *required*, it just makes the enchantment cheaper (karma
wise) and easier.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack in |
|u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk |the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you can't |
| |move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell |Consider how lucky you are that life has been good |
|Principal subjects in:-|to you so far... |
|Comp Sci & Visual Arts | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/FA>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ 5++ |
|X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can still say FUCK! Americans can't|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:	"A Halliwell" <u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Wed, 24 Apr 1996 11:52:14 +0100 (BST)

Message no. 24 |Ink isn't a thing? I don't see why it shouldn't work. Tattoing could even be
|used as part of an ordeal for initiation. I've got it. The tattooing is part
|of a ritual that give the tattoo the ability to permently have the spell
|effects attached to it. Just like a regular foci. Just make the creation of
|the "magical" ink difficult or rarely known. (To avoid munchies you may want
|to make it attrubute debilitating if the fail a opposed willpower test vs
|the spell level to absorb the magical energies.) I think it's a great idea.
|I think I said that already. Didn't I?

I'm not sure I'd want one. That is THE perfect thing to ground through.
A spell lockthat you can't take off.....
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack in |
|u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk |the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you can't |
| |move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell |Consider how lucky you are that life has been good |
|Principal subjects in:-|to you so far... |
|Comp Sci & Visual Arts | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/FA>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ 5++ |
|X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can still say FUCK! Americans can't|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:	TopCat <topcat@******.net>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Thu, 25 Apr 1996 12:29:56 -0500

Message no. 25 > Recently, one of the players in my game (who is really too
>inquisitive for his own good :) asked if I had considered any rules about
>using a Tattoo as a Foci. He and I glanced through the Grimoire II<sp?> and
>Awakenings to see if there were any possible rules that could apply to
>that. I didn't see any rules on either side of the issue so I decided to
>see what y'all think about it, and/or if anyone else had found a rule
>that forbidded it. Thanks in advance.

I say no... and here's my reasons.

First off, there is never a mention in any source of spell locks (or foci)
that aren't solid, material objects. I don't feel that a tattoo qualifies
as such.

Second, all spell locks and foci are transferrable from one person to
another. I hate the munchkinous idea of teeth as spell locks and so on, but
they can be removed from the "host" and taken by or given to another person
("Hey man, I got a meet that might go sour, mind yanking out that canine of
yours again so I can have that barrier spell if I need it?"). You can't
yank out a tattoo and give it to another person.

As a side note, spell locks vanish when created (to mundane eyes anyways) so
the tattoos wouldn't be visible ("Take a look at this new magic tattoo I
got!" "Umm, you ever think about taking a break from the shadows for a
while, man?").

--------------------------------------------------------
* Bob Ooton -- <topcat@******.net> *
* Golden Tiger Association -- Submission Fighting Team *
--------------------------------------------------------
* The problem with this country today is that we're *
* getting almost as much government as we pay for. *
--------------------------------------------------------

From:	Russ Myrick <rm91612@****.net>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Thu, 25 Apr 1996 10:18:45 -0700

Message no. 26 Benjamin wrote:
> No, it doesn't require oricalcum.
>
> Page, 25, Grimthingy:"Just about anything can serve as the telesma: a
> wooden wand, a jeweld charm, a weapon, a car, and so on." (telesma
> being the phys. component)
>
> How many cars do you know of that are made with oricalcum?
>
> > 1) the persons body is the physcial component
> > 2) or the ink used to make the tatoo is the physical component.
> > Personally I would go with the ink idea, that way you could make it
> > from scratch yourself.
> > I would say that it would be possible.
>
> I don't think ink would work... how about just sfticking a /dev/focus
> under his skin? like the sub-dermal drug release thingie...
> I would have to agree with you on this ... ink especially, even though
the cover of "Awakenings" does show the tattoo pealing off of the lady's
back. I've not seen a tattoo yet that provides one continuous trail of
ink of any given color. Now there is something that will work ... down
along the Amazon (I got stationed down there for a bit) there's some of
the indians that go in for inlayed body art -- instead of using ink alone
they use dyed thread or twine to "draw" the image. Color is added to the
fiber as it is being sewn into the skin. According to the locals I
visited with about it, a continuity of materials is required for the
charm or talisman and that living tissue could not be embued with the
powers of the charm/talisman. Therefore it would appear that any foci
must have a substrate in which all other materials are imbedded, similar
to a chip's circuitry?

From:	Hairy Smurf <ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Thu, 25 Apr 1996 13:57:20 -0400 (EDT)

Message no. 27 At 12:29 4/25/96 -0500, you wrote:
>> Recently, one of the players in my game (who is really too
>>inquisitive for his own good :) asked if I had considered any rules about
>>using a Tattoo as a Foci. He and I glanced through the Grimoire II<sp?> and
>>Awakenings to see if there were any possible rules that could apply to
>>that. I didn't see any rules on either side of the issue so I decided to
>>see what y'all think about it, and/or if anyone else had found a rule
>>that forbidded it. Thanks in advance.
>
>I say no... and here's my reasons.
>
>First off, there is never a mention in any source of spell locks (or foci)
>that aren't solid, material objects. I don't feel that a tattoo qualifies
>as such.
>

So give the tat' a material component. I've seen it done. It's not easy and
you need to anchor it to bone but that would sovle both probelms.

>Second, all spell locks and foci are transferrable from one person to
>another. I hate the munchkinous idea of teeth as spell locks and so on, but
>they can be removed from the "host" and taken by or given to another person
>("Hey man, I got a meet that might go sour, mind yanking out that canine of
>yours again so I can have that barrier spell if I need it?"). You can't
>yank out a tattoo and give it to another person.
>

The result with a material component would kinda be like the blood magic
talismans from Earthdawn. (don't whap me it's just an illustration.) Other
then that it should work.

>As a side note, spell locks vanish when created (to mundane eyes anyways) so
>the tattoos wouldn't be visible ("Take a look at this new magic tattoo I
>got!" "Umm, you ever think about taking a break from the shadows for a
>while, man?").
>

Sasquatch
(The technican formerly known as BLAIR)

------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Support Bacteria! |
| It's the only culture some people have. |
| |
| ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu |
| tech@*******.adelphi.edu blair@*****.adelphi.edu |
| No Website (yet) |
------------------------------------------------------------------

From:	Richard J Badger <rjbadger@*******.unh.edu>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Thu, 25 Apr 1996 14:46:43 -0400 (EDT)

Message no. 28 On Thu, 25 Apr 1996, TopCat wrote:

[Snip stuff about tatoos]
> I say no... and here's my reasons.
>
> First off, there is never a mention in any source of spell locks (or foci)
> that aren't solid, material objects. I don't feel that a tattoo qualifies
> as such.
Once the ink bonds into the persons skin, wouldn't that classify
as a solid, material object? If not...oh well.

> Second, all spell locks and foci are transferrable from one person to
> another. I hate the munchkinous idea of teeth as spell locks and so on, but
> they can be removed from the "host" and taken by or given to another person
> ("Hey man, I got a meet that might go sour, mind yanking out that canine of
> yours again so I can have that barrier spell if I need it?"). You can't
> yank out a tattoo and give it to another person.
You may not be able to yank out, but...,very sick suggestion
coming up>, you should be able to skin the person, and use that as the
foci/lock. NOTE: In any game, I do not encourage/recommend/etc... this
idea. It just came off the top of my head. I personally find the idea
VERY sick.

> As a side note, spell locks vanish when created (to mundane eyes anyways) so
> the tattoos wouldn't be visible ("Take a look at this new magic tattoo I
> got!" "Umm, you ever think about taking a break from the shadows for a
> while, man?").
How about having the magic tattoo inlayed into another tattoo.

Just a few thoughts.

- Richard Badger
*****************************************************************************
Richard James Badger rjbadger@******.unh.edu

PhoenixCon - Bringing Seacoast Gaming back From the Ashes
July 13-14 Durham, NH
Contact goodrich@******.mv.com for more information
*****************************************************************************

From:	"A Halliwell" <u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Thu, 25 Apr 1996 21:50:19 +0100 (BST)

Message no. 29 |I say no... and here's my reasons.
|
|First off, there is never a mention in any source of spell locks (or foci)
|that aren't solid, material objects. I don't feel that a tattoo qualifies
|as such.

Hmmmm. But.....
The Focus would require enchanting, so the person being tatooed would have
to sit through a *very* boring few weeks...

|Second, all spell locks and foci are transferrable from one person to
|another. I hate the munchkinous idea of teeth as spell locks and so on, but
|they can be removed from the "host" and taken by or given to another person
|("Hey man, I got a meet that might go sour, mind yanking out that canine of
|yours again so I can have that barrier spell if I need it?"). You can't
|yank out a tattoo and give it to another person.

No, but it can be taken by force. It's a bit messy though.....
Also, if the person "Yanked out his tooth focus" and gave it to someone
else, they wouldn't gain any benefits from the spell and the bond would be
broken, meaning that it would require a re-bonding later.
(Wasted karma if nothing else).

|As a side note, spell locks vanish when created (to mundane eyes anyways) so
|the tattoos wouldn't be visible ("Take a look at this new magic tattoo I
|got!" "Umm, you ever think about taking a break from the shadows for a
|while, man?").

Normal Foci don't vanish however, so what's to stop the enchantment of the
tatoo from being slightly different from the Standard Spell-Lock.
Also, if it did vanish, it could be especially useful as a "secret
handshake" type thing for members of a secret initiate group.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack in |
|u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk |the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you can't |
| |move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell |Consider how lucky you are that life has been good |
|Principal subjects in:-|to you so far... |
|Comp Sci & Visual Arts | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/FA>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ 5++ |
|X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can still say FUCK! Americans can't|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:	GLENN.ROBERTSON@***.Edu
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Thu, 25 Apr 1996 15:16:43 -0700 (MST)

Message no. 30 > First off, there is never a mention in any source of spell locks (or foci)
> that aren't solid, material objects. I don't feel that a tattoo qualifies
> as such.

Dried ink is still a physical object, just a pretty thin layer.

>
> Second, all spell locks and foci are transferrable from one person to
> another. I hate the munchkinous idea of teeth as spell locks and so on, but
> they can be removed from the "host" and taken by or given to another person
> ("Hey man, I got a meet that might go sour, mind yanking out that canine of
> yours again so I can have that barrier spell if I need it?"). You can't
> yank out a tattoo and give it to another person.

Not any different than having a small focus and swallowing it to prevent
its loss. Just because your body is now a physical barrier, it is still
a separate object. The ink, likewise, is merely under the dermal layer.

Many cultures believe in the tatoo as something more than just a symbol
(we're talking natives and such) and in SR, I thought all the old native
beliefs and rituals turned out to become magically active. So why
wouldn't the tatoos work as well?

Just my thoughts.

Glenn

From:	TopCat <topcat@******.net>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Fri, 26 Apr 1996 01:30:34 -0500

Message no. 31 >> First off, there is never a mention in any source of spell locks (or foci)
>> that aren't solid, material objects. I don't feel that a tattoo qualifies
>> as such.
> Once the ink bonds into the persons skin, wouldn't that classify
>as a solid, material object? If not...oh well.

So someone could enchant water, take a bath in it, and as long as some of
that water got absorbed into their skin, they'd have a nice new spell lock
or focus? I'd have to say no to that and I don't know of anyone who'd say
yes (waits for someone to say yes and for magicians everywhere to start
bathing hourly).

>> Second, all spell locks and foci are transferrable from one person to
>> another. I hate the munchkinous idea of teeth as spell locks and so on, but
>> they can be removed from the "host" and taken by or given to another
person
>> ("Hey man, I got a meet that might go sour, mind yanking out that canine of
>> yours again so I can have that barrier spell if I need it?"). You can't
>> yank out a tattoo and give it to another person.
> You may not be able to yank out, but...,very sick suggestion
>coming up>, you should be able to skin the person, and use that as the
>foci/lock. NOTE: In any game, I do not encourage/recommend/etc... this
>idea. It just came off the top of my head. I personally find the idea
>VERY sick.

But if it can't be taken away (even by skinning) it wouldn't be a focus.
This seems as true in SR as it is in Champions (still can't find mention
anywhere in the rules of a focus that isn't a solid, transferrable item).
BTW, in our campaigns things like organ-legging are commonplace. Why leave
60,000+ nuyen worth of metahuman dying in the street when you can make some
money and get rid of the evidence in one fell swoop?

--------------------------------------------------------
* Bob Ooton -- <topcat@******.net> *
* Golden Tiger Association -- Submission Fighting Team *
--------------------------------------------------------
* The problem with this country today is that we're *
* getting almost as much government as we pay for. *
--------------------------------------------------------

From:	TopCat <topcat@******.net>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Fri, 26 Apr 1996 01:30:37 -0500

Message no. 32 >|Second, all spell locks and foci are transferrable from one person to
>|another. I hate the munchkinous idea of teeth as spell locks and so on, but
>|they can be removed from the "host" and taken by or given to another person
>|("Hey man, I got a meet that might go sour, mind yanking out that canine of
>|yours again so I can have that barrier spell if I need it?"). You can't
>|yank out a tattoo and give it to another person.

>No, but it can be taken by force. It's a bit messy though.....
>Also, if the person "Yanked out his tooth focus" and gave it to someone
>else, they wouldn't gain any benefits from the spell and the bond would be
>broken, meaning that it would require a re-bonding later.
>(Wasted karma if nothing else).

The spell lock would have to be re-bonded and the spell cast again on the
tooth in order to lock the spell to the new user, but what's 2 karma among
friends?

I also don't see the ink as the focus/lock because if someone did decide to
skin the tattoo off and use it as a lock, they'd have to turn the tattoo
back to ink form (yep, that'll happen) and then get tattooed themselves with
that ink (and wait all that time).

Although there seems to be a great deal of support for the tattoo idea, I
still have to stand against it (although I am somewhat of a "guilty until
proven otherwise" sort of person). I think that it would be a cool idea,
and it sounds great, but fundamentally it just doesn't work out IMHO.

--------------------------------------------------------
* Bob Ooton -- <topcat@******.net> *
* Golden Tiger Association -- Submission Fighting Team *
--------------------------------------------------------
* The problem with this country today is that we're *
* getting almost as much government as we pay for. *
--------------------------------------------------------

From:	TopCat <topcat@******.net>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Fri, 26 Apr 1996 01:33:45 -0500

Message no. 33 About tattoos...

I don't agree with them as spell locks, or foci (see my other posts about
that). I could, however, see them as expendable or reusable fetishes. So I
haven't totally discounted the magical value of such things.

--------------------------------------------------------
* Bob Ooton -- <topcat@******.net> *
* Golden Tiger Association -- Submission Fighting Team *
--------------------------------------------------------
* The problem with this country today is that we're *
* getting almost as much government as we pay for. *
--------------------------------------------------------

From:	"Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Fri, 26 Apr 1996 09:42:06 +0100

Message no. 34 Richard J Badger <shadowrn@********.itribe.net> said on 14:46/25 Apr 96...

> > First off, there is never a mention in any source of spell locks (or foci)
> > that aren't solid, material objects. I don't feel that a tattoo qualifies
> > as such.
> Once the ink bonds into the persons skin, wouldn't that classify
> as a solid, material object? If not...oh well.

I'm not that much of an expert on tattoos, but the way I understand them
to be made is that a needle is used to pump ink into the skin cells (if
I'm wrong, somebody please correct me). A cell is a more-or-less
enclosed thing with openings to the outside "world" that allow it to take
in nutrients and all that. I guess it all depends on whether you view the
tattoo as onething, or as made up of all the separate, colored cells.

One observation: if tattoo foci would be useful, what would that make your
typical Yakuza?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Can't stop what's coming.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/mortuary.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:	"A Halliwell" <u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:49:18 +0100 (BST)

Message no. 35 |One observation: if tattoo foci would be useful, what would that make your
|typical Yakuza?

Grounding bait?
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack in |
|u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk |the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you can't |
| |move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell |Consider how lucky you are that life has been good |
|Principal subjects in:-|to you so far... |
|Comp Sci & Visual Arts | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/FA>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ 5++ |
|X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can still say FUCK! Americans can't|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:	mbroadwa@*******.glenayre.com (Mike Broadwater)
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Fri, 26 Apr 1996 07:35:55 -0500

Message no. 36 I can see tattoo's being used as reusable fetishes (like what Bob said) but
not really as spell locks. I can't put my finger on why not, but something
about it just doesn't fit with my world view of shadowrun. I can, however,
see them being used as foci. I'd actually like one of my players to try
this. It could be a whole set of adventures itself. Think of all the
things that would go into it:
1). Gathering the right materials (special inks, powders, etc that have to
go into the dye)
2). Researching the formula (which may sound boring, but only if you do it
by die roles. If you tell the character that the only info on it that he
has is about a group of ppl in <fill in the blank> who he has to visit. And
when the party gets there they have to do x, y, and z to prove that they are
worthy of learning the secrets...)
3). Putting it all together. Enchanting, not being interuppted, etc.

and then think of all the fun that happens once he has it. Someone could
study the owners aura and pick up the formula from it (IMO, that is). And
boy, won't the party be pissed the first time that someone grounds a hell
blast through the mages shoulder? <eg>

Mike Broadwater
http://www.olemiss.edu/~neon
"Madness takes it's toll. Please have exact change."

From:	"A Halliwell" <u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Thu, 25 Apr 1996 21:50:19 +0100 (BST)

Message no. 37 >Hmmmm. But.....
>The Focus would require enchanting, so the person being tatooed would have
>to sit through a *very* boring few weeks...
I take it you've never seen a show about the polynesian tattoo's of manhood
they get to lie on the floor for weeks if not a month or so and get a giant
tattoo carved into then with jagged sticks.......

-<<<<Informative in Idaho City(?)ok so I'm runnin outa cities>>>>-
--Bob(a source of semi-useless bulkk information)

From:	mbroadwa@*******.glenayre.com (Mike Broadwater)
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Fri, 26 Apr 1996 08:24:17 -0500

Message no. 38 >-<<<<Informative in Idaho City(?)ok so I'm runnin outa
cities>>>>-
> --Bob(a source of semi-useless bulkk information)
>
What? No comment from Bob?! He's not dead, is he? I mean, like, he'll be
back, right? <g>

Mike Broadwater
http://www.olemiss.edu/~neon
"Madness takes it's toll. Please have exact change."

From:	dbuehrer@****.org (David Buehrer)
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Fri, 26 Apr 1996 07:32:46 -0600 (MDT)

Message no. 39 TopCat wrote:
|
|I also don't see the ink as the focus/lock because if someone did decide to
|skin the tattoo off and use it as a lock, they'd have to turn the tattoo
|back to ink form (yep, that'll happen) and then get tattooed themselves with
|that ink (and wait all that time).

I don't think so. If (and I stress the if part) a person had spell lock in
the form of a tatoo then that would be the lock, the tatoo. If someone were
to remove the tatoo (by cutting off the piece of skin the tatoo is in) then
they would be the proud possesors of the lock. I would require that the
piece of skin be cured, to prevent it from decaying, and would then allow
the new owner to bond it to themselves by spending the appropriate amount
of karma. I don't see the need to re-tatoo the tatoo. All they would have
to do is just pin the piece of skin with the tatoo onto their lapel or
something (maybe it would make a cool earing).

Think of it this way. There is a three inch diameter crystal ball that
is a spell lock that happens to be mounted on the end of a six foot long
staff. During the course of a battle the staff is cut in half. The crystal
ball would not have to be remounted on a staff to work because it is in and
of itself the spell lock.

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
~~~~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.html~~~~~~

From:	dbuehrer@****.org (David Buehrer)
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Fri, 26 Apr 1996 07:48:20 -0600 (MDT)

Message no. 40 TopCat wrote:
|
|About tattoos...
|
|I could, however, see them as expendable or reusable fetishes. So I
|haven't totally discounted the magical value of such things.

Now that's a cool idea. I'm going to start working on some new NPCs
right away. The "Tatooed Man" just might become my most feared villain.

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
~~~~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.html~~~~~~

From:	"A Halliwell" <u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Fri, 26 Apr 1996 15:04:18 +0100 (BST)

Message no. 41 |
|
|>Hmmmm. But.....
|>The Focus would require enchanting, so the person being tatooed would have
|>to sit through a *very* boring few weeks...
|I take it you've never seen a show about the polynesian tattoo's of manhood
|they get to lie on the floor for weeks if not a month or so and get a giant
|tattoo carved into then with jagged sticks.......
|
|-<<<<Informative in Idaho City(?)ok so I'm runnin outa
cities>>>>-
| --Bob(a source of semi-useless bulkk information)
|

Wierd!
I typed the first bit, the reply came back saying it was still from me....
(I take it you used forward instead of reply?)
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack in |
|u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk |the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you can't |
| |move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell |Consider how lucky you are that life has been good |
|Principal subjects in:-|to you so far... |
|Comp Sci & Visual Arts | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/FA>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ 5++ |
|X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can still say FUCK! Americans can't|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:	Hairy Smurf <ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Fri, 26 Apr 1996 10:51:28 -0400 (EDT)

Message no. 42 At 09:42 4/26/96 +0100, you wrote:
>
>One observation: if tattoo foci would be useful, what would that make your
>typical Yakuza?
>
>--
>Gurth@******.nl

DEADLY?

Sasquatch
(The technican formerly known as BLAIR)

------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Support Bacteria! |
| It's the only culture some people have. |
| |
| ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu |
| tech@*******.adelphi.edu blair@*****.adelphi.edu |
| No Website (yet) |
------------------------------------------------------------------

From:	Hairy Smurf <ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:04:01 -0400 (EDT)

Message no. 43 At 07:48 4/26/96 -0600, you wrote:
>TopCat wrote:
>|
>|About tattoos...
>|
>|I could, however, see them as expendable or reusable fetishes. So I
>|haven't totally discounted the magical value of such things.
>
>Now that's a cool idea. I'm going to start working on some new NPCs
>right away. The "Tatooed Man" just might become my most feared villain.
>
>-David

If you need ideas (I know I already mentioned this but just to be helpful)
see Palladium Book's Rifts RPG. Specifically World Book Two: Atlantis. While
the tattooed men in there won't translate well to Shaowrun leafing through a
copy at your local store will give you some extra ideas. (You just need to
figure out what spell makes that dragon tattoo come to life nder the mages
control. [Sic'um Boy!])

Sasquatch
(The technican formerly known as BLAIR)

------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Support Bacteria! |
| It's the only culture some people have. |
| |
| ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu |
| tech@*******.adelphi.edu blair@*****.adelphi.edu |
| No Website (yet) |
------------------------------------------------------------------

From:	"A Halliwell" <u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Fri, 26 Apr 1996 15:04:18 +0100 (BST)

Message no. 44 ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
|
|
|>Hmmmm. But.....
|>The Focus would require enchanting, so the person being tatooed would have
|>to sit through a *very* boring few weeks...
|I take it you've never seen a show about the polynesian tattoo's of manhood
|they get to lie on the floor for weeks if not a month or so and get a giant
|tattoo carved into then with jagged sticks.......
|
|-<<<<Informative in Idaho City(?)ok so I'm runnin outa
cities>>>>-
| --Bob(a source of semi-useless bulkk information)
|

Wierd!
I typed the first bit, the reply came back saying it was still from me....
(I take it you used forward instead of reply?)
--
|Andrew Halliwell |Consider how lucky you are that life has been good |
|Principal subjects in:-|to you so far... |
----------------------end message---------------------

Yep, since my and Bob use the same crappy system, in order to include
the orginal message, we have to use the forward command. we usually
include > to make easier to understand.

U-Gene << Yeah well, it's FREE!!!! >>

From:	Justin Thomas <Justin.C.Thomas-1@**.umn.edu>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Fri, 26 Apr 1996 13:55:50 -0500

Message no. 45 At 11:04 AM 4/26/96 -0400, you wrote:
>At 07:48 4/26/96 -0600, you wrote:
>>TopCat wrote:
>>|
>>|About tattoos...
>>|
>>|I could, however, see them as expendable or reusable fetishes. So I
>>|haven't totally discounted the magical value of such things.
>>
>>Now that's a cool idea. I'm going to start working on some new NPCs
>>right away. The "Tatooed Man" just might become my most feared villain.
>>
>>-David
>
>If you need ideas (I know I already mentioned this but just to be helpful)
>see Palladium Book's Rifts RPG. Specifically World Book Two: Atlantis. While
>the tattooed men in there won't translate well to Shaowrun leafing through a
>copy at your local store will give you some extra ideas. (You just need to
>figure out what spell makes that dragon tattoo come to life nder the mages
>control. [Sic'um Boy!])

Maybe that is an ally which spends it's resting time in a tatoo (not really
there just comes out of there when it emerges from it's native plane)
Most people say hey that isn't in the rules, but you have to realize that
magic in shadowrun is very simplifies for the books to make roleplaying
easy, but really (yeah I know there is no reality to it) magic is just as
strange and unpredictable as the people who use it...
******************************
Justin Thomas
"Farr"
Email:
thom0767@****.tc.umn.edu
http://www.tc.umn.edu/nlhome/g192/thom0767/index.html

From:	seb@***.ripco.com (Sebastian Wiers)
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Fri, 26 Apr 1996 15:05:10 -0500 (CDT)

Message no. 46 >
> I'm not that much of an expert on tattoos, but the way I understand them
> to be made is that a needle is used to pump ink into the skin cells (if
> I'm wrong, somebody please correct me). A cell is a more-or-less
> enclosed thing with openings to the outside "world" that allow it to take
> in nutrients and all that. I guess it all depends on whether you view the
> tattoo as onething, or as made up of all the separate, colored cells.
>
Actually, I believe most of the ink is IN BETWEEN the cells, the
particles held in place by conective tissue. The neadle would kill any cells
it ruptured, so the ink would not be in living cells. Very much like a small,
sterile splinter staying under the skin.

But that is imaterial to a tatoo's validity as a focus. A tatoo is a work of
art, and would be percieved as such by a mage/shaman. It would definately be
a signifigant object. The question is wether it is seperate enough from its
owner to be enchanted. That would depend on the nature of the tatooist and
the enchanter.

> One observation: if tattoo foci would be useful, what would that make your
> typical Yakuza?

the typical yakuza is mundane, but I could very easily see them having tatoo
ANCHORS, which our gm is fond of giving his yaks. Again, I'd require a very
good, magically informed tatooist.

--
--Seb

From:	"Mr. E" <enygma@********.com>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Fri, 26 Apr 1996 14:38:12 -0700 (PDT)

Message no. 47 On Fri, 26 Apr 1996, TopCat wrote:

> About tattoos...
>
> I don't agree with them as spell locks, or foci (see my other posts about
> that). I could, however, see them as expendable or reusable fetishes. So I
> haven't totally discounted the magical value of such things.
>

You could also use them as an initiate's Thesis.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__ __ ____ ___ ___ ____
enygma /__)/__) / / / / /_ /\ / /_ /
enygma@********.com / / \ / / / / /__ / \/ /___ /

From:	"Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Sat, 27 Apr 1996 11:14:53 +0100

Message no. 48 U-Gene and not A Halliwell <shadowrn@********.itribe.net> said on 15:04/26
Apr 96...

> Yep, since my and Bob use the same crappy system, in order to include
> the orginal message, we have to use the forward command. we usually
> include > to make easier to understand.

Have you considered saving the message you want to quote, then hitting
Reply, loading in the original message text again, and adding the
larger-than signs?

(I know it's a lot of work -- I used to have to do that back in college...)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
What's the difference between actors and politicians?
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/mortuary.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:	Matti Aistrich <aistrich@********.hkkk.fi>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Sat, 27 Apr 1996 14:41:21 +0300 (EET DST)

Message no. 49 On Fri, 26 Apr 1996, Hairy Smurf wrote:

> copy at your local store will give you some extra ideas. (You just need to
> figure out what spell makes that dragon tattoo come to life nder the mages
> control. [Sic'um Boy!])
>
There's a tattoo parlor detailed in one of the Citybooks, which makes
tattoos which can come to life... so people got flaming magic swords, etc.
tattoed... the trick was that they'd tattoo a dragon or such if asked to,
but when it came to life it was only the size it was tattooed in... can
you say "oops!" upon bringing to life your 4 inch tall dragon? :-)

---------------------------------------------
: Perfect is : Matti M. Aistrich :
: only just : :
: good enough! : aistrich@********.hkkk.fi :
---------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GB d+(++) s-:+ a- C+ W+ w PS+ PE++ Y+ t---
X- R++ tv+ b+ D++ G e++>+++ h-- y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

From:	Hairy Smurf <ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu>
Subject:	Re: Foci
Date:	Sat, 27 Apr 1996 09:17:45 -0400 (EDT)

Message no. 50 At 14:41 4/27/96 +0300, you wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Apr 1996, Hairy Smurf wrote:
>
>> copy at your local store will give you some extra ideas. (You just need to
>> figure out what spell makes that dragon tattoo come to life nder the mages
>> control. [Sic'um Boy!])
>>
>There's a tattoo parlor detailed in one of the Citybooks, which makes
>tattoos which can come to life... so people got flaming magic swords, etc.
>tattoed... the trick was that they'd tattoo a dragon or such if asked to,
>but when it came to life it was only the size it was tattooed in... can
>you say "oops!" upon bringing to life your 4 inch tall dragon? :-)
>
>
>Matti M. Aistrich

Which citybook?

Sasquatch
(The technican formerly known as BLAIR)

------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Support Bacteria! |
| It's the only culture some people have. |
| |
| ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu |
| tech@*******.adelphi.edu blair@*****.adelphi.edu |
| No Website (yet) |
------------------------------------------------------------------

Message no. 51 Matti Aistrich <shadowrn@********.itribe.net> said on 14:41/27 Apr 96...

> There's a tattoo parlor detailed in one of the Citybooks, which makes
> tattoos which can come to life... so people got flaming magic swords, etc.
> tattoed... the trick was that they'd tattoo a dragon or such if asked to,
> but when it came to life it was only the size it was tattooed in... can
> you say "oops!" upon bringing to life your 4 inch tall dragon? :-)

I don't know, the mini-dragon that's sitting on the shoulder of that
woman in the Grimoire always looked like a very cool pet to me...
granted, that's taller than 10 centimeters (you're a European, Matti --
behave like one :) but anyway...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
but it meant everything to me
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/mortuary.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. 52 > >> First off, there is never a mention in any source of spell locks (or foci)
> >> that aren't solid, material objects. I don't feel that a tattoo qualifies
> >> as such.
> > Once the ink bonds into the persons skin, wouldn't that classify
> >as a solid, material object? If not...oh well.
>
> So someone could enchant water, take a bath in it, and as long as some of
> that water got absorbed into their skin, they'd have a nice new spell lock
> or focus? I'd have to say no to that and I don't know of anyone who'd say
> yes (waits for someone to say yes and for magicians everywhere to start
> bathing hourly).

No because water doesn't become a solid when it is introduced to the
body. Now if it were ice cubes implanted subdermally and a method
to keep them frozen were discovered then you idea might should work.

---Sedah Drol

This is a test.....
For the next several lines there will be a test signature.
If this were an actual .sig it would be proceeded with:
a Geek Code script
a Home Page
a quote
and any other information I wish to disclose.
Repeat this was only a test....

Message no. 53 > About tattoos...
>
> I don't agree with them as spell locks, or foci (see my other posts about
> that). I could, however, see them as expendable or reusable fetishes. So I
> haven't totally discounted the magical value of such things.

Oh that sounds really neat, the reusable part, would sure hate to
have an expendable tatoo fetish. Could hurt, would the skin go by-by
also? Hmm...

---Sedah Drol
This is a test.....
For the next several lines there will be a test signature.
If this were an actual .sig it would be proceeded with:
a Geek Code script
a Home Page
a quote
and any other information I wish to disclose.
Repeat this was only a test....

Message no. 54 > One observation: if tattoo foci would be useful, what would that make your
> typical Yakuza?

One hell of a killer mage. Or a target for quick cash.

----Sedah Drol

This is a test.....
For the next several lines there will be a test signature.
If this were an actual .sig it would be proceeded with:
a Geek Code script
a Home Page
a quote
and any other information I wish to disclose.
Repeat this was only a test....

Message no. 55 >> There's a tattoo parlor detailed in one of the Citybooks, which makes
>> tattoos which can come to life... so people got flaming magic swords, etc.
>> tattoed... the trick was that they'd tattoo a dragon or such if asked to,
>> but when it came to life it was only the size it was tattooed in... can
>> you say "oops!" upon bringing to life your 4 inch tall dragon? :-)

>I don't know, the mini-dragon that's sitting on the shoulder of that
>woman in the Grimoire always looked like a very cool pet to me...
>granted, that's taller than 10 centimeters (you're a European, Matti --
>behave like one :) but anyway...

Always looked like an illusion spell to me or, more likely, an artist who
thought the idea would look cool and didn't quite realize how many people
would think/want that to be a new game mechanic...

--------------------------------------------------------
* Bob Ooton -- <topcat@******.net> *
* Golden Tiger Association -- Submission Fighting Team *
--------------------------------------------------------
* The problem with this country today is that we're *
* getting almost as much government as we pay for. *
--------------------------------------------------------

Message no. 56 >> So someone could enchant water, take a bath in it, and as long as some of
>> that water got absorbed into their skin, they'd have a nice new spell lock
>> or focus? I'd have to say no to that and I don't know of anyone who'd say
>> yes (waits for someone to say yes and for magicians everywhere to start
>> bathing hourly).

>No because water doesn't become a solid when it is introduced to the
>body. Now if it were ice cubes implanted subdermally and a method
>to keep them frozen were discovered then you idea might should work.

Then enchant food, eat it, don't work out or exercise so it becomes fat,
then you've got one amazing fat focus. I still hate the idea of subdermal
locks or foci in any way shape or form, but that's taken care of in our
campaign by the average lifespan of such objects (about one fight with
magically active opponents).

--------------------------------------------------------
* Bob Ooton -- <topcat@******.net> *
* Golden Tiger Association -- Submission Fighting Team *
--------------------------------------------------------
* The problem with this country today is that we're *
* getting almost as much government as we pay for. *
--------------------------------------------------------

Message no. 57 >> I don't agree with them as spell locks, or foci (see my other posts about
>> that). I could, however, see them as expendable or reusable fetishes. So I
>> haven't totally discounted the magical value of such things.

>Oh that sounds really neat, the reusable part, would sure hate to
>have an expendable tatoo fetish. Could hurt, would the skin go by-by
>also? Hmm...

Nah, the tattoo would fade though.

--------------------------------------------------------
* Bob Ooton -- <topcat@******.net> *
* Golden Tiger Association -- Submission Fighting Team *
--------------------------------------------------------
* The problem with this country today is that we're *
* getting almost as much government as we pay for. *
--------------------------------------------------------

Message no. 58 > I'm not that much of an expert on tattoos, but the way I understand them
> to be made is that a needle is used to pump ink into the skin cells (if
> I'm wrong, somebody please correct me). A cell is a more-or-less
> enclosed thing with openings to the outside "world" that allow it to take
> in nutrients and all that. I guess it all depends on whether you view the
> tattoo as onething, or as made up of all the separate, colored cells.

It was my understanding that tatoos were below the dermal layer. If the
ink were in the cells (which you'd need a REALLY supersmall needle point
for) your skin would soon flake off colored bits and the tatoo would
vanish. You change all your skin cells in under a week (I think it was
even as fast as a couple of days, but you get my point.)

Glenn Robertson

Message no. 59 > I don't think so. If (and I stress the if part) a person had spell lock in
> the form of a tatoo then that would be the lock, the tatoo. If someone were
> to remove the tatoo (by cutting off the piece of skin the tatoo is in) then
> they would be the proud possesors of the lock. I would require that the
> piece of skin be cured, to prevent it from decaying, and would then allow
> the new owner to bond it to themselves by spending the appropriate amount
> of karma. I don't see the need to re-tatoo the tatoo. All they would have
> to do is just pin the piece of skin with the tatoo onto their lapel or
> something (maybe it would make a cool earing).

Kinda like the indians wearing scalps, neh?

Glenn

Message no. 60 TopCat <shadowrn@********.itribe.net> said on 15:00/28 Apr 96...

> Then enchant food, eat it, don't work out or exercise so it becomes fat,
> then you've got one amazing fat focus.

No, I'm not taking this seriously, but I think I have to point out the
basic flaw in this idea for those who do: change the focus and it loses
its magical capabilities. That means that, if you enchant a walking stick
to be your rating 15 Power Focus, you'd better hope nobody breaks it in
two. As for the enchanted food -- if that can be created at all, anyway :)
-- as soon as it becomes anything else than food...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
but it meant everything to me
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/mortuary.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. 61 >> Then enchant food, eat it, don't work out or exercise so it becomes fat,
>> then you've got one amazing fat focus.

>No, I'm not taking this seriously, but I think I have to point out the
>basic flaw in this idea for those who do: change the focus and it loses
>its magical capabilities. That means that, if you enchant a walking stick
>to be your rating 15 Power Focus, you'd better hope nobody breaks it in
>two. As for the enchanted food -- if that can be created at all, anyway :)
>-- as soon as it becomes anything else than food...

First off, I'm very glad that this wasn't taken seriously.

Next, since the ink would change form (in becoming a tattoo) both physically
and symbolically, you could also say that the tattoo focus/lock is impossible.

Thanks for the help, Gurth :)

--------------------------------------------------------
* Bob Ooton -- <topcat@******.net> *
* Golden Tiger Association -- Submission Fighting Team *
--------------------------------------------------------
* All you need to start up an insane asylum is *
* an empty room and the right kind of people *
--------------------------------------------------------

Message no. 62 At 20:08 4/29/96 -0500, you wrote:
>>> Then enchant food, eat it, don't work out or exercise so it becomes fat,
>>> then you've got one amazing fat focus.
>
>>No, I'm not taking this seriously, but I think I have to point out the
>>basic flaw in this idea for those who do: change the focus and it loses
>>its magical capabilities. That means that, if you enchant a walking stick
>>to be your rating 15 Power Focus, you'd better hope nobody breaks it in
>>two. As for the enchanted food -- if that can be created at all, anyway :)
>>-- as soon as it becomes anything else than food...
>
>First off, I'm very glad that this wasn't taken seriously.
>
>Next, since the ink would change form (in becoming a tattoo) both physically
>and symbolically, you could also say that the tattoo focus/lock is impossible.

> Bob Ooton

So I take a stick some twine and a couple of feathers. I cast the ritual and
put those things together to make a staff fetish. Sounds like they
definately change symbolically and their overall physical space change. The
tattoo just has two components. Ink and flesh.

Sasquatch

------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Support Bacteria! |
| It's the only culture some people have. |
| |
| ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu |
| tech@*******.adelphi.edu blair@*****.adelphi.edu |
| No Website (yet) |
------------------------------------------------------------------

Message no. 63 TopCat <shadowrn@********.itribe.net> said on 20:08/29 Apr 96...

> First off, I'm very glad that this wasn't taken seriously.

Hey, there have been enough ideas of this sort for us old-timers :) to be
able to filter out the serious ones :)

> Next, since the ink would change form (in becoming a tattoo) both physically
> and symbolically, you could also say that the tattoo focus/lock is impossible.

Here I would argue that ink, even when dry, remains ink. After all,
everyone calls both the dry, black stuff that's on the pages in a book,
and the wet variant of the same, "ink."
With the food, that gets actually changed into lots of other things, but
the ink (apart from being dry) is the same stuff to the general public.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Many sayings about respect for the old and the virtues of poverty are
often quoted by the rich and elderly.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/mortuary.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. 64 >>-<<<<Informative in Idaho City(?)ok so I'm runnin outa
cities>>>>-
>> --Bob(a source of semi-useless bulkk information)
>>
>What? No comment from Bob?! He's not dead, is he? I mean, like, he'll be
>back, right? <g>

"Sorry guys.....I just got my new Laaw rokets in and I was just putting in the
gun rack in my APC.......man are they cool! Go ahead and bring it on man, I'd
like to se anyne try to kil me now....ok I see a lot of peoplt try to kill me
but most of them are street scum who try to mug me on the way to my burrito fix
....HAH....insolent (U-Gene told me to use that ?) specks....I will destroy you
with my Laaws and SAM's and grenades and my FN HAR and my FN MAG......."
--Bob(a very avid gun collector....boy do I love my Mach 100)

Message no. 65 sometime Gurth said:
>Have you considered saving the message you want to quote, then hitting
>Reply, loading in the original message text again, and adding the
>larger-than signs?
>
>(I know it's a lot of work -- I used to have to do that back in college...)

well it's a swell scheem but we have no way(that we can find) to include our ma
il files, they all get automatically saved to somewhere, but we just can't get
to them......so as for now..we'll have to do this

-<<<<Blue in Boston>>>>-

"U-Gene, you mean all of that....that stuff you have for computers things you
can't figure out how to send mail easily....whats wrong with you....I mean I am
a goon and I am fully capapable of killing anyone I want..."
--Bob(the slayer of small street urcins and other things)

Message no. 66 > >No because water doesn't become a solid when it is introduced to the
> >body. Now if it were ice cubes implanted subdermally and a method
> >to keep them frozen were discovered then you idea might should work.
>
> Then enchant food, eat it, don't work out or exercise so it becomes fat,
> then you've got one amazing fat focus. I still hate the idea of subdermal
> locks or foci in any way shape or form, but that's taken care of in our
> campaign by the average lifespan of such objects (about one fight with
> magically active opponents).

Sure would suck too lose weight, or if one really wants to be
evil--can one say lipo-suction?

---Sedah Drol

This is a test.....
For the next several lines there will be a test signature.
If this were an actual .sig it would be proceeded with:
a Geek Code script
a Home Page
a quote
and any other information I wish to disclose.
Repeat this was only a test....

Message no. 67 > >No, I'm not taking this seriously, but I think I have to point out the
> >basic flaw in this idea for those who do: change the focus and it loses
> >its magical capabilities. That means that, if you enchant a walking stick
> >to be your rating 15 Power Focus, you'd better hope nobody breaks it in
> >two. As for the enchanted food -- if that can be created at all, anyway :)
> >-- as soon as it becomes anything else than food...
>
> First off, I'm very glad that this wasn't taken seriously.
>
> Next, since the ink would change form (in becoming a tattoo) both physically
> and symbolically, you could also say that the tattoo focus/lock is impossible.

Actually no, harden ink is still ink, it's just in a different state,
called a solid. Atomically it is still the same thing just the
molecules are barely moving at all and are closer together.
Heat up the ink a bit and it will become liquid again. Gurth's
example was rather crude. I would say you still have a walking
stick, it's just a bit smaller, but since the enchantment was placed
on the entire stick, the mage would have to have all the original
pieces of the walking stick in order to use it as a focus.
The ways to destroy the enchantment on a focus is to either utterly
destroy the physical component or attack the enchantment from the way
I understand it.. I would rule that breakin an object in half is not
utterly destroying it. Now setting fire to the object could utterly destroy
it if all that was left was ashes.

---Sedah Drol
This is a test.....
For the next several lines there will be a test signature.
If this were an actual .sig it would be proceeded with:
a Geek Code script
a Home Page
a quote
and any other information I wish to disclose.
Repeat this was only a test....

Message no. 68 Sedah Drol <shadowrn@********.itribe.net> said on 14:32/30 Apr 96...

> Actually no, harden ink is still ink, it's just in a different state,
> called a solid. Atomically it is still the same thing just the
> molecules are barely moving at all and are closer together.
> Heat up the ink a bit and it will become liquid again.

I'm not 100% sure about this...

> Gurth's example was rather crude. I would say you still have a walking
> stick, it's just a bit smaller, but since the enchantment was placed on
> the entire stick, the mage would have to have all the original pieces
> of the walking stick in order to use it as a focus. The ways to destroy
> the enchantment on a focus is to either utterly destroy the physical
> component or attack the enchantment from the way I understand it.. I
> would rule that breakin an object in half is not utterly destroying it.
> Now setting fire to the object could utterly destroy it if all that
> was left was ashes.

I seem to recall reading in an SR book somewhere that any change to a
focus makes it lose its enchantment, because it isn't the object that was
enchanted any longer. The Lone Star book makes a reference to this at
least, when it talks about the registering of foci -- the LS mages shave
off a sliver that is too small to actually change the focus, but
(according to them) lage enough to be part of it, so they can find your
focus with ritual sorcery, should the need arise.

Therefore, breaking an enchanted walking stick in two destroys the focus,
even if you have all the pieces together.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It really makes you stop and think.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/mortuary.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. 69 On Sat, 27 Apr 1996, Hairy Smurf wrote:

> >There's a tattoo parlor detailed in one of the Citybooks, which makes
> >tattoos which can come to life... so people got flaming magic swords, etc.
>
> Which citybook?
>
Citybook I: Butcher, Baker, Candlestick Maker, page 50, Sleaz's Tattoo Parlor

---------------------------------------------
: Perfect is : Matti M. Aistrich :
: only just : :
: good enough! : aistrich@********.hkkk.fi :
---------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GB d+(++) s-:+ a- C+ W+ w PS+ PE++ Y+ t---
X- R++ tv+ b+ D++ G e++>+++ h-- y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Message no. 70 |
|On Sat, 27 Apr 1996, Hairy Smurf wrote:
|
|> >There's a tattoo parlor detailed in one of the Citybooks, which makes
|> >tattoos which can come to life... so people got flaming magic swords, etc.
|>
|> Which citybook?
|>
|Citybook I: Butcher, Baker, Candlestick Maker, page 50, Sleaz's Tattoo Parlor

I don't want to appear like a dolt, but what are Citybooks?
I take it these have nothing to do with shadowrun?
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack in |
|u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk |the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you can't |
| |move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell |Consider how lucky you are that life has been good |
|Principal subjects in:-|to you so far... |
|Comp Sci & Visual Arts | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/FA>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ 5++ |
|X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can still say FUCK! Americans can't|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Message no. 71 On Wed, 1 May 1996, A Halliwell wrote:

> I don't want to appear like a dolt, but what are Citybooks?
> I take it these have nothing to do with shadowrun?

Citybooks are non-game system specific sourcebooks on establishments in
fantasy cities published by Flying Buffalo (and some other company later
on, I believe). There are a total of six of them. Nope, they're not
related to SR.

---------------------------------------------
: Perfect is : Matti M. Aistrich :
: only just : :
: good enough! : aistrich@********.hkkk.fi :
---------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GB d+(++) s-:+ a- C+ W+ w PS+ PE++ Y+ t---
X- R++ tv+ b+ D++ G e++>+++ h-- y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Message no. 72 On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, Gurth wrote:

> Matti Aistrich <shadowrn@********.itribe.net> said on 14:41/27 Apr 96...
>
> > There's a tattoo parlor detailed in one of the Citybooks, which makes
> > tattoos which can come to life... so people got flaming magic swords, etc.
> > tattoed... the trick was that they'd tattoo a dragon or such if asked to,
> > but when it came to life it was only the size it was tattooed in... can
> > you say "oops!" upon bringing to life your 4 inch tall dragon? :-)
>
> I don't know, the mini-dragon that's sitting on the shoulder of that
> woman in the Grimoire always looked like a very cool pet to me...

Sure, but if you're expecting to get a full-size dragon and get one that
can be stepped on...

---------------------------------------------
: Perfect is : Matti M. Aistrich :
: only just : :
: good enough! : aistrich@********.hkkk.fi :
---------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GB d+(++) s-:+ a- C+ W+ w PS+ PE++ Y+ t---
X- R++ tv+ b+ D++ G e++>+++ h-- y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Message no. 73 >are actual stats available for a centering focus?

Use the same karma/bonding and creation costs as a Spell Category Focus and
you should be in the ballpark.

>the "see me not" explanation of spell locks is gone. (from Awakenings)

Yep. It's still IMHO, but I would like to get it into an "official" state
somewhere, someday.

Take care,
Steve

Message no. 74 On Mon, 6 Jan 1997 09:31:05 -0500 Steve Kenson <TalonMail@***.COM>
writes:
>>are actual stats available for a centering focus?

Thanks bunches:)
>
>Use the same karma/bonding and creation costs as a Spell Category
>Focus and
>you should be in the ballpark.
<snip>

Canthros-the-shapeshifter-mage

Message no. 75 Steve Kenson said on 9:31/ 6 Jan 97...

> >the "see me not" explanation of spell locks is gone. (from Awakenings)
>
> Yep. It's still IMHO, but I would like to get it into an "official" state
> somewhere, someday.

It was one of the things I liked, because finally we got an explanation of
how and why mundanes didn't see spell locks, but magicians did...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Why are these dudes all dressed up in white?
-> 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. 76 Hi everybody.

Here is a simple question (well, as simple as they get):

My first GM told us that 1) Spell Locks etc. could only be turned on and of=
f
by the creator and 2) it is a link back to its creator.

Now, is 1) an official rule, i haven't got access to The Grimoire 1. Ed. an=
d
i can't seem to find it in The Grimoire 2. Ed.

I agree with number 2) (EARTHDAWN - true patterns etc.) but is the
combination og 1) and 2) a way to limit PC's access to Foci, and if they ge=
t
them trash them from astral space. Not everybody would want multiple astral=

links pointing back to themselves lying all over the world. A fallout from
these rules would be an increased Street Index for all Foci.

Another consequence of these rules are that it is only your own Foci that
are useable, or you have to be an initiate to Mask the Foci you have
pillaged from dead bodies etc. Do you think that it was my former GM's way
of hampering Hypermagicians or am i turning blind and too lazy to read all
of The Grimoire 2. Ed again.

allan
Denmark

P.S. Thanks for answering my Hypermagicians question. It gave me something
to think about.

Message no. 77 At 02-Okt-97 wrote Allan Petersen:

>Hi everybody.

>Here is a simple question (well, as simple as they get):

>My first GM told us that 1) Spell Locks etc. could only be turned on and off
>by the creator and 2) it is a link back to its creator.

simple answer:

1) not true, the person to whom the foci is bonded can do it,
mondanes don`t qualify.
2) not true, too. It is the person to whom the foci is bonded.
--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evil Overlord advice #17:

When I employ people as advisors, I will occasionally listen to
their advice.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Message no. 78 > From: Allan Petersen <ap@******.DK>
> Date: Thursday, October 02, 1997 4:29 AM

> Hi everybody.

Hello :)

> Here is a simple question (well, as simple as they get):

Nothing's simple on this list, no matter how simple it looks. ;)

> My first GM told us that 1) Spell Locks etc. could only be turned on and
off
> by the creator and 2) it is a link back to its creator.

<Snip>

Here's my take:

1) Simply not true according to the official rules. According to the
rules ANY magician can turn a spell lock on/off. In my game, I rule that
only magicians with spellcasting abilities can do so, but that's a house
rule. (To me, it doesn't make sense to allow a conjuring adept the ability
to turn spell locks on/off.)

2) I believe he is correct on this one. Now, when you ground through the
lock, it grounds through the lock and affects whoever it is bonded
to/attached to. It can be used as a ritual link to the person it is bonded
to as well. However, as with all foci, it can be used as a ritual link to
its creator as well (the enchantor who created it). I'm not sure where
this rule is, but I am pretty sure it's canon.

> allan
> Denmark

Message no. 79 > My first GM told us that 1) Spell Locks etc. could only be turned on and off
> by the creator and

That is a house rule..According to the BBB a spell lock can be
activated by a magician of the same tradition..ie an Owl Shaman can
activate another Owl Shamans spell lock, a hermetic cn activate
another hermetics spell lock..

2) it is a link back to its creator.

True..as long as the lock is active..also according to the BBB..
--------------------------------GRANITE
"Rock Steady"
===============================================
Lord, Grant Me The Serenity To Accept The Things I Cannot Change,
The Courage To Change The Things I Can,
And The Wisdom To Hide The Bodies Of Those People I Had To Kill
Because They Pissed Me Off.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ShadowRunner's Serenity Prayer

Message no. 80 In a message dated 97-10-03 04:05:36 EDT, barbie@**********.COM (Barbie)
writes:

> simple answer:
>
> 1) not true, the person to whom the foci is bonded can do it,
> mondanes don`t qualify.
> 2) not true, too. It is the person to whom the foci is bonded.
>
Sorry Barbie, had to jump in here. Not nearly so cut and dry I'm afraid.

1) Mundane's may or may not qualify, that is entirely up to the GM in
question. However, they can be turned off by a N/PC performing a Dispelling
trick (only have to be Grade 1 for this). It is also possibly that with a
Sorcery Test against the object (say target number of 4?), another magician
can attempt to turn on/off the spell lock and not be connected to it (the
original caster OR the person/target the lock is for). Kind of like a
control test, but not so much so.

2) The creator of the foci in question has left a detailed pattern within
the items construction. Unless the creator of the object has taken some
steps, it will function in much the same way as a Spell Formula (original
copy) would. Ritual only, and I just don't think a computerized copy, optic
or not, would be of much help. Also, a "Quest of Knowledge" could be used in
order to obtain information about the item in question, which will also give
the name/type of individual/entity that created it.

And knowledge is always a key to the power over another....
-K

Message no. 81 J. Keith Henry wrote:

>>1) However, they can be turned off by a N/PC performing a
Dispelling
>>trick (only have to be Grade 1 for this

>>2) Unless the creator of the object has taken some
>>steps, it will function in much the same way as a Spell
Formula (original
>>copy) would.

For my own info, where did you find these rules?

Galen

Message no. 82 In a message dated 97-10-03 16:30:03 EDT, Hank.Jackson@*********.COM writes:

> >>1) However, they can be turned off by a N/PC performing a
> Dispelling
> >>trick (only have to be Grade 1 for this
>
> >>2) Unless the creator of the object has taken some
> >>steps, it will function in much the same way as a Spell
> Formula (original
> >>copy) would.
>
> For my own info, where did you find these rules?
>
>
Ack, Galen, do me a favor and fix your mail editor...thsoe spaces make things
tricky to read...anyway...

The dispelling option is actually within the Grimoire. Spell Locks are Force
1, and Dispelling can be performed by a Grade 1 or higher initiate (or by
Free Spirits of the right abilities).

The idea for the "Enchantment Formulae" is actually taken from an
extrapolation of the Mage Thesis/Ritual Links rules. All objects that have
been worked so extensively by a magician will have some connection, per se,
to the creator. Call it an "unwritten signature" if you will. Also,
original copies of spell formulae are ritual links to the designer as well.
(Hint folks, Designing Teams working on a single work are nice in more ways
than one).

That help Galen?

-Keith

Message no. 83 On 2 Oct 97 at 13:45, GRANITE wrote:

> > My first GM told us that 1) Spell Locks etc. could only be turned
> > on and off by the creator and
>
> That is a house rule..According to the BBB a spell lock can be
> activated by a magician of the same tradition..ie an Owl Shaman can
> activate another Owl Shamans spell lock, a hermetic cn activate
> another hermetics spell lock..
The rules for this ain't in the Grimoire, but in the SRII Main Book, aka
BBB. aka THE BOOK.

See: SRII, p. 137: "A magician must bond a focus before he
can use it." and "A magician must activate a magical focus before he can
use it." See SRII, p. 33, and p. 43 for the definition of "magician".

See also SRII, p. 138: "Spell locks, once bonded to a particular spell,
need not activated immediately. A magician can create the lock and then
give it to another magician of the same tradition (shamanic or hermetic)
for placement and activation. Anyone can, theoretically, place the spell
lock, but only another magician of the proper tradition can activate
it." Later: "The magician who creates the spell lock can activate and
deactivate them at will."

Note: If the tradition is 'shamanic', the totem doesn't have to be the
same afaik.

> > 2) it is a link back to its creator.
> True..as long as the lock is active..also according to the BBB..
SRII, p.138: "As long as the focus is working, [...it] can be traced
through astral space by means of Astral Tracking (see p. 149).
Still-active spell locks (those that have not been removed from their
target) can be used as a material link that makes the lock's creator
vulnerable to ritual sorcery."

Sascha
--
+---___---------+------------------------------------+------------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |I don't believe in love,|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@ |I never have, / I never |
| \___ __/ | Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.de |will, / I don't believe |
|==== \_/ ======|*Wearing hats is just a way of life*| in love / it's never |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me |worth the pain you feel |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----Queensryche-+

Message no. 84 > > > My first GM told us that 1) Spell Locks etc. could only be turned
> > > on and off by the creator and
> >
> > That is a house rule..According to the BBB a spell lock can be
> > activated by a magician of the same tradition..
> The rules for this ain't in the Grimoire, but in the SRII Main Book, aka
> BBB. aka THE BOOK.

I think I hear an echo..

> Note: If the tradition is 'shamanic', the totem doesn't have to be the
> same afaik.

Hmm...That is a slightly different interpretation..I suppose both are
valid..So I would say ask your GM..

> > > 2) it is a link back to its creator.
> > True..as long as the lock is active..also according to the BBB..
> SRII, p.138: "As long as the focus is working, [...it] can be traced
> through astral space by means of Astral Tracking

There goes that echo again ;p
--------------------------------GRANITE
"Rock Steady"
===============================================
Lord, Grant Me The Serenity To Accept The Things I Cannot Change,
The Courage To Change The Things I Can,
And The Wisdom To Hide The Bodies Of Those People I Had To Kill
Because They Pissed Me Off.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ShadowRunner's Serenity Prayer

Message no. 85 On 6 Oct 97 at 22:51, GRANITE wrote:
[snip]
> > > That is a house rule..According to the BBB a spell lock can be
> > > activated by a magician of the same tradition..
> > The rules for this ain't in the Grimoire, but in the SRII Main Book, aka
> > BBB. aka THE BOOK.
> I think I hear an echo..
Yup. Just as I followed the discussion and saw some people stating THE
RULEZ wrong, I had to point the right ones out. As your reply was the
most correct, I choose that - less work that way :-)

> > Note: If the tradition is 'shamanic', the totem doesn't have to be the
> > same afaik.
> Hmm...That is a slightly different interpretation..I suppose both are
> valid..So I would say ask your GM..
As per BBB (to use your words) there are two traditions - hermetic and
shamanic (SRII, p. 116). This would be much more if each Totem had its
"own" tradition. See also SRII, p. 138: "[...] and the give it to
another magician (shamanic or hermetic) for placement [...]".

You know, I like having page/rule references when being asked. :-)

Sascha
--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst | 'If I'd had to buy |
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| you, you wouldn't |
| \___ __/ | | be worth the |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | price.' |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | - E.Weatherwax |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary ----(T.Pratchett)+

Message no. 86 > As per BBB (to use your words) there are two traditions - hermetic and
> shamanic (SRII, p. 116).

Well..you might want to make that 3 traditions..adding in Adepts..I
know they refer to PAs directly in that passage..However..now we have
a greater variety of adepts..

> This would be much more if each Totem had its
> "own" tradition. See also SRII, p. 138: "[...] and the give it to
> another magician (shamanic or hermetic) for placement [...]".

IMO each totem has a different approach to magic.. that is why it is
easier for a shaman to learn from a teacher who follows the same
totem..However, using PG 116 as a referance for tradition your
interpretation is the correct one...

> You know, I like having page/rule references when being asked. :-)

Yea..I used to do that a lot..Quoting chapter and verse..But I save
it for when I am hot on a particular topic now..
--------------------------------GRANITE
"Rock Steady"
===============================================
Lord, Grant Me The Serenity To Accept The Things I Cannot Change,
The Courage To Change The Things I Can,
And The Wisdom To Hide The Bodies Of Those People I Had To Kill
Because They Pissed Me Off.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ShadowRunner's Serenity Prayer

Message no. 87 1) I find it ironic that I, using AOL and the Northwestern University
(chicago) server am getting through to this list fine. For those of
you unaware, NWU is really bad with computers. They don't even publish
class schedules on the web until after the semester/quarter (depends
on which college you go to) starts.

2) Let me see if I understand sustaining foci and why you wouldn't
want to have them constantly active and why they are not insanely
powerful in SR3.
<SR newbie talk>
1) If you loose it, someone with it can trace you anywhere and
recognize it as yours if they've seen you before.
2) Every time you deactivate it, you have to recast the spell when you
activate it, suffering the drain and everything.
3) While it is active, it can be attacked from the astrall plane and
hence: supressed (temporarily deactivated) and even destroyed. It can
be targetted with magic or attacked manually. If destroyed, it's gone.
4) While it it active you are very noticable to the astral plane.
Assuming you are not a magician, it makes you stand out like you were
one.
Therefor: You should only keep them active when you are going to need
them. You should not leave it lying around in your appartment, in case
someone breaks in. It is highly expensive and walking around with it
constantly active can end up in you having to buy it again and re-bond
it. The less you pay to rebond it (the less force), the easier it is
to get broken. This is not good. Therefor: Use sparingly.

I get this right? Are they still unbalancing? I have my Wolf Shaman
with a force 3 Increase Reflexes +3 focus. (I refuse to learn and cast
increase reflexes +3 at anything less than three force. It strikes me
as loop-hole-ing otherwise. not to mention it makes my foci that bit
harder to supresse and a good deal harder to destroy.) And, of course,
Increase Reflexes +3 at force 3. I am trying to convince myself that I
am not being blatant powergamer (I reduces his flaws/edges below the
10 point mark. Took away all the extra attributes. i'm trying!
really!). And, well, wanted to make sure I had this right. It's been a
long day.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Message no. 88 :Let me see if I understand sustaining foci and why you wouldn't
:want to have them constantly active and why they are not insanely
:powerful in SR3.

:1) If you loose it, someone with it can trace you anywhere and
:recognize it as yours if they've seen you before.

That is true of any focus, and even some non-focus magical effects
(active spells and spirits can be traced back to you also, I believe).

:2) Every time you deactivate it, you have to recast the spell when you
:activate it, suffering the drain and everything.

That basically just means the focus is not more powerful than the
mage: it used to be, you kick on a lock, and the spell was active, with
all the casting done (and all the succeces used). And you could it on as
a simple action. Basically, it let you cast two sustained spells very
quickly and very well, in the time it would take to cast one normal spell.
I think sustaining foci make much more sense.

:3) While it is active, it can be attacked from the astral plane and
:hence: supressed (temporarily deactivated) and even destroyed. It can
:be targetted with magic or attacked manually. If destroyed, it's gone.

Yes, that is true. This is not as easy or risk free as it once was,
but most moderate force foci are in trouble (if thier user does nothing to
defend them).

:4) While it it active you are very noticable to the astral plane.
:Assuming you are not a magician, it makes you stand out like you were
:one.

I'm not sure you are any more noticable. Anybody seeing the focus
astrally can figure out what it is, but that doesn't mean the person
holding it is a mage. Its no longer a fancy form of suicide for a mundane
to carry an active focus.

:Therefor: You should only keep them active when you are going to need
:them. You should not leave it lying around in your appartment, in case
:someone breaks in. It is highly expensive and walking around with it
:constantly active can end up in you having to buy it again and re-bond
:it. The less you pay to rebond it (the less force), the easier it is
:to get broken. This is not good. Therefor: Use sparingly.

The same could be said for any SR item that can be destroyed, is
expensive, and may be illegal. That's a pretty broad area, and many of
those itmes attract more attention than foci.

:I get this right? Are they still unbalancing? I have my Wolf Shaman
:with a force 3 Increase Reflexes +3 focus. (I refuse to learn and cast
:increase reflexes +3 at anything less than three force. It strikes me
:as loop-hole-ing otherwise. not to mention it makes my foci that bit
:harder to supresse and a good deal harder to destroy.)

It does apear that that is one spell where force has no real effect
besides "defensively". I would not consider a rating 3 sustaining focus
"hard" to destroy, but it seems high enough for general use.

Mongoose

Message no. 89 > It does apear that that is one spell where force has no real effect
> besides "defensively". I would not consider a rating 3 sustaining
focus
> "hard" to destroy, but it seems high enough for general use.
>
> Mongoose
>
that force 3 focus is MUCH harder to destroy that a force 1 focus.
Still fairly easy, but still.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer