Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Ron Clark <rclark@****.NET>
Subject: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 12:12:06 -0500
Two questions:

1) can a fetish and a foci be combined into one item? A player of mine
has a fetish for his fireball spell, and he wants to also have that fetish
(a cane) be a force 3 foci. I don't see any reason why that can't be, but
I wanted to see what you thought.

2) can a fetish be implanted within the mage without effecting his
essence? Same player wants to have a fetish for physical barrier, a gem of
some kind, put inside him. Again, I don't see any reason why it would harm
his magic rating, but I wanted to get a second opinion.


Thanks


Ron
#include disclamer.h
Message no. 2
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 14:00:52 EDT
In a message dated 10/20/1998 12:12:12 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
rclark@****.NET writes:

> Two questions:

JUST TWO?!? By the gods boy, we need to get you speak up more ;)

> 1) can a fetish and a foci be combined into one item? A player of
> mine
> has a fetish for his fireball spell, and he wants to also have that fetish
> (a cane) be a force 3 foci. I don't see any reason why that can't be, but
> I wanted to see what you thought.

Oh yes, let's see, in SR2, this could prove interesting enough. I'd tell him
yes, see if he tries to get away with an expendable fetish, and then have a
blast when he uses it and destroys the cane in question (EGMG).

Honestly, I believe it could be done in SR3 rules, as comparing those with the
SR2 Grimoire. The "Reusable Fetish" could be applied in this case.

Optionally, I would like to point out that this form of mechanics is what
started the "Magical Bullet" argument on many occasion. The gun is the Power
Foci, and the bullet is the Fetish in question. Just a warning....

> 2) can a fetish be implanted within the mage without effecting his
> essence? Same player wants to have a fetish for physical barrier, a gem of
> some kind, put inside him. Again, I don't see any reason why it would harm
> his magic rating, but I wanted to get a second opinion.

The only real problem with this as I see is exactly how does the guy control
it. I'm going to ignore the "is their essence loss" argument for just a few.
We don't know if current limb/organ replacement causes essence loss or not (as
this is the really real world) but it is suffice enough IMO to state that any
object that is going to have or require some form of mental awareness state on
the part of the user -IS- going to have to have a method of control.

Is the gem going to have a "Detect Thought <turn on/turn off>" link worked
into it? Is it going to have the barrier up at all times, and if so, how is
this guy going to eat? What is the radius of the barrier and the potential
social problems *this* is going to bring up?

Now as for whether or not the "bearer" of the item in question loses essence,
perhaps we could consider the previous paragraph, is the guy aware of it and
does he expect to gain something from it? If so, then I would at least cause
a .1 or .2 essence loss for the purposes of *some* measure of game balance.

-K
Message no. 3
From: "O'Mordha, Michael" <michael.omordha@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:57:13 -0700
> Two questions:
>
> 1) can a fetish and a foci be combined into one item? A player of
mine
>has a fetish for his fireball spell, and he wants to also have that fetish
>(a cane) be a force 3 foci. I don't see any reason why that can't be, but
>I wanted to see what you thought.
>
> 2) can a fetish be implanted within the mage without effecting his
>essence? Same player wants to have a fetish for physical barrier, a gem of
>some kind, put inside him. Again, I don't see any reason why it would harm
>his magic rating, but I wanted to get a second opinion.
>

My understanding of Grimmy2 led me to believe that unless someone created a
fetish focus, [someone have the stats on that?] the above is not possible.
the enchanter can, of course, turn a reusable fetish into a focus, depending
on formulae, quality of original, etc. but that would result in a focus, not
a combination fetish and focus.

on #2, if a person can get a cyberdeck implanted in their cranium, of course
a mage can get a focus implanted. as K. pointed out, using it may be
difficult, unless the mage actually wants it activated all the time
[rendering the mage perpetually susceptible to grounding spells from astral
space in our games]. if they want it to be on/off, K's idea of having some
sort of detect thought trigger seems to be required. again, in the games
i've played and GM'd, any form of implant causes magic loss unless cloned
from the magician's flesh, which doesn't apply here.
-O'Mordha
Message no. 4
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 15:04:12 -0400
At 12:12 PM 10/20/98 -0500, you wrote:

> 1) can a fetish and a foci be combined into one item? A player of
mine
>has a fetish for his fireball spell, and he wants to also have that fetish
>(a cane) be a force 3 foci. I don't see any reason why that can't be, but
>I wanted to see what you thought.

Sure, I fail to see why not. I *think* it would have to be designed that
way though, as a "stacked focus" sort of thing.

> 2) can a fetish be implanted within the mage without effecting his
>essence? Same player wants to have a fetish for physical barrier, a gem of
>some kind, put inside him. Again, I don't see any reason why it would harm
>his magic rating, but I wanted to get a second opinion.

Peg legs cost Essence, according to Cyberpirates. So why wouldn't a gem or
something implanted in a person cost Essence? That strikes me a silly and
badly out of tune with the spirit of the game and the rules.

No, I'd say any implantation would have to cost Essence, but I'd further
say that being inside the persons aura (and not just "atop" it like
clothing) would interfere with the magic and the flow of mana, enough so
that it wouldn't work.

Erik J.


http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World
Message no. 5
From: Kama <kama@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 15:47:27 -0400
On Tue, 20 Oct 1998, Erik Jameson wrote:

(SNIP)

>
> > 2) can a fetish be implanted within the mage without effecting his
> >essence? Same player wants to have a fetish for physical barrier, a gem of
> >some kind, put inside him. Again, I don't see any reason why it would harm
> >his magic rating, but I wanted to get a second opinion.
>
> Peg legs cost Essence, according to Cyberpirates. So why wouldn't a gem or
> something implanted in a person cost Essence? That strikes me a silly and
> badly out of tune with the spirit of the game and the rules.
>
> No, I'd say any implantation would have to cost Essence, but I'd further
> say that being inside the persons aura (and not just "atop" it like
> clothing) would interfere with the magic and the flow of mana, enough so
> that it wouldn't work.
>
When I first read this I agreed. Then I thought for a second . . . I
dislike the idea of just any fetish being implanted. However, for the
right character I would see no problem in a TATTOOED fetish which is very
similar. ("My fire lizard tattoo was created by a grand master and
specially enchanted to help me in summoning the spirits of fire")

Oh no . . . I think I just got back to "whatever works with the character
concept and doesn't throw off the game balance" . . . **SIGH**

- Kama (who is back from a week of being sick and a week at DISNEYWORLD -
just in case anyone wondered why I was being so quiet . . .)
Message no. 6
From: David Cordy <DCordy@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 13:36:07 -0700
> > 2) can a fetish be implanted within the mage without effecting
> his
> >essence? Same player wants to have a fetish for physical barrier, a gem
> of
> >some kind, put inside him. Again, I don't see any reason why it would
> harm
> >his magic rating, but I wanted to get a second opinion.
>
> Peg legs cost Essence, according to Cyberpirates. So why wouldn't a gem
> or
> something implanted in a person cost Essence? That strikes me a silly and
> badly out of tune with the spirit of the game and the rules.
>
> No, I'd say any implantation would have to cost Essence, but I'd further
> say that being inside the persons aura (and not just "atop" it like
> clothing) would interfere with the magic and the flow of mana, enough so
> that it wouldn't work.
>
Ok, to take that last paragraph to an extreme. What would happen if a mage
were to swallow a penny (I don't know where he got it from, he's just got
it, kay)? The penny is now inside the mage. In your game, would the mage's
essence go down? How much? Would the essence rating return to its original
value after it had been 'passed through'? And, if no essence lose is caused
by swallowing the penny, what is to stop the mage from swallowing the
fetish?
Just a thought that I had while eating my lunch.

David
Message no. 7
From: Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 16:19:09 -0700
: 1) can a fetish and a foci be combined into one item? A player
of mine
:has a fetish for his fireball spell, and he wants to also have that
fetish
:(a cane) be a force 3 foci. I don't see any reason why that can't be,
but
:I wanted to see what you thought.

Most any MUNDANE item can be a focus, but I don't think a magical one
can be. There's no reason the cane couldn't be the focus, and its
(seprate but attached) hadle could be the fetish. I think they would have
to be seperate, however.


: 2) can a fetish be implanted within the mage without effecting
his
:essence? Same player wants to have a fetish for physical barrier, a gem
of
:some kind, put inside him. Again, I don't see any reason why it would
harm
:his magic rating, but I wanted to get a second opinion.


And then you could implant foci, and make your cyberware INTO foci...

IMO, this is a bad thing to allow. I can't see a clear cut rule
against it, but it seems to me focus or fetish should be a VISABLE symbol
of magic power.

Mongoose
Message no. 8
From: "O'Mordha, Michael" <michael.omordha@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 15:48:26 -0700
<snip>
-------------------------------------
Most any MUNDANE item can be a focus, but I don't think a magical one
can be. There's no reason the cane couldn't be the focus, and its
(seprate but attached) hadle could be the fetish. I think they would have
to be seperate, however.


: 2) can a fetish be implanted within the mage without effecting his
:essence? Same player wants to have a fetish for physical barrier, a gem of
:some kind, put inside him. Again, I don't see any reason why it would harm
:his magic rating, but I wanted to get a second opinion.


And then you could implant foci, and make your cyberware INTO foci...

IMO, this is a bad thing to allow. I can't see a clear cut rule
against it, but it seems to me focus or fetish should be a VISABLE symbol
of magic power.

Mongoose
------------------------------------------
If I may address the above in revers order, I disagree with the
visible aspect. Back in SR1 it even indicated that foci were neither
visible nor tangible to mundanes. If a mage actually took the time and
expense to have customer 'ware created using enchanting guidelines [you
thought delta grade was expensive and/or obscure!], then they should be able
to have cybernetic foci. again, these would be permanently active, barring
the development of a detect thoughts spell (great idea, k), with all the
attendant liabilities.
on the first issue, i agree that if someone whats to split up the
parts of their item into components, then yes, they would be able to have a
single, contiguous item with the aspects of both focus and fetish. in that
case, why don't they also wrap the cane with a snakeskin strip which is
another focus. this would still allow for a single contiguous item, but
creates a stacking-type feature. in games i've GM'd, we've disallowed this
wrapping feature and others like it unless the proximity of another inert
(read "non-sentient") magical aura were taken into account during the design
phase. one shaman preferred this method because it allowed him to
eventually create the item he wanted without coming up with all the karma at
once.
Message no. 9
From: Steadfast <laughingman@*******.DE>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 02:57:54 +0200
And so it came to happen that Ron Clark wrote:
----------
> Two questions:
>
> 1) can a fetish and a foci be combined into one item? A player
of mine
> has a fetish for his fireball spell, and he wants to also have that
fetish
> (a cane) be a force 3 foci. I don't see any reason why that can't be,
but
> I wanted to see what you thought.

Seems fine to me under SR3rd. unless of course you make the Fetish an
expandable. But than I would remind him of the good old Focus addiction
section back in Awakenings. Or, DUH, he could loose that one thing and
loose actually two. Have I mentioned earlier that I do not like magical
chars? ;o)

> 2) can a fetish be implanted within the mage without effecting
his
> essence? Same player wants to have a fetish for physical barrier, a gem
of
> some kind, put inside him. Again, I don't see any reason why it would
harm
> his magic rating, but I wanted to get a second opinion.

Hm. Implanting something without affecting his essence...Maybe I should ask
my Streetdoc weather he could do that trick with my Datajack or the
Cyberspurs. Would be nice. But anyway, if you COULD implant a Fetish
without loosing essence it would be possible. You are allways in contact
with the Fetish, It sure is hard to get this Fetish out of him physically
and you would just have to think that the Fetish is about to be used when
he casts this Barrier spell. But of course that would need a bit of
training there, maybe a week or two. But please please make the Fetish an
expandable one and write us the impression of the player after he used his
little gizmo >:o)

> Thanks

Allways helpfull, always smile.

--->Steadfast
to be "human" is not a state of living
I want to achieve.
Message no. 10
From: Iridios <iridios@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 21:33:49 -0400
David Cordy wrote:

> What would happen if a mage
> were to swallow a penny (I don't know where he got it from, he's just got
> it, kay)? The penny is now inside the mage. In your game, would the mage's
> essence go down?

But the penny isn't providing any benefits to the mage (except for
maybe a long overdue dose of zinc), and didn't require any surgery.
The penny is not altering or magically intersecting with the mages
aura in any way.

> And, if no essence lose is caused
> by swallowing the penny, what is to stop the mage from swallowing the
> fetish?

My guess is that the fetish would be a slight bit larger than a penny.
:) And to reiterate what Erik said in his last paragraph, if the
fetish were totally enveloped by the mages aura, it would IMO (and
Erik's :) lose its connection to the astral plane (the source of
magical energy) and probably not work.

Now if it were implanted in the surface of the body, say the chest or
forehead (there's an odd sight), or the back of the hand, I'd have no
problems with it working right. Although it still may cause essence
loss.

--
Iridios
iridios@*********.com
ICQ UIN:6629224
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9489

-------Begin Geek Code Block------
GS d-(++) s+: a- C++ U?@>++ P L E?
W++ N o-- K- w(---) O? M-- V? PS+@
PE Y+ !PGP>++ t++@ 5+ X++@ R++@ tv
b+ DI++ !D G e+@>++++ h--- r+++ y+++
-------End Geek Code Block--------
Message no. 11
From: David Cordy <DCordy@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 08:03:19 -0700
> But the penny isn't providing any benefits to the mage (except for
> maybe a long overdue dose of zinc), and didn't require any surgery.
> The penny is not altering or magically intersecting with the mages
> aura in any way.
>
But it is a foreign object that has been introduced into the mages body.
And as Erik stated, "Peg legs cost Essence, according to Cyberpirates. So
why wouldn't a gem or something implanted in a person cost Essence? That
strikes me a silly and badly out of tune with the spirit of the game and the
rules.
No, I'd say any implantation would have to cost Essence..."
And how does implantation differ from swallowing? Again, they both insert
an object into the mages system, the difference is in the delivery method.
And it can't be due simply to surgery. Mages can get simple or moderate
surgery without risk, or with very little risk, of essence loss. And as I
stated in another post, what about everyone's friend, the cortex bomb?

> My guess is that the fetish would be a slight bit larger than a penny.
> :) And to reiterate what Erik said in his last paragraph, if the
> fetish were totally enveloped by the mages aura, it would IMO (and
> Erik's :) lose its connection to the astral plane (the source of
> magical energy) and probably not work.
>
Is there a limit either way on what size a fetish can be? I don't think
that I have ever seen one, but I have to admit that I have never really
looked through the rules for one. As for the aura argument, what IYO would
happen in the following case. A troll mage has a fetish that is the size of
a coffee cup (4-6 oz.), much bigger then the penny tried earlier. Now he
wants to sneak his new toy past a warded door. Can he simply stuff the cup
sized fetish in his mouth and walk through the ward? Remember, the aura of
the fetish is now "totally enveloped" by the troll mages aura.

Sorry if I am coming off kinda strong, but I like to have some ideas of how
the rules can be broken and fixed, before my players simply find the holes.
Thanks

-David
Message no. 12
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 12:16:18 EDT
In a message dated 10/21/1998 2:43:22 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
iridios@*********.COM writes:

>
> My guess is that the fetish would be a slight bit larger than a penny.
> :) And to reiterate what Erik said in his last paragraph, if the
> fetish were totally enveloped by the mages aura, it would IMO (and
> Erik's :) lose its connection to the astral plane (the source of
> magical energy) and probably not work.
>
I am just going to point this out now. This rule does not hold in SR3, and
you may wish to keep that in mind.

-K
Message no. 13
From: Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 13:16:34 -0400
On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, K in the Shadows wrote:

->In a message dated 10/21/1998 2:43:22 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
->iridios@*********.COM writes:
->
->>
->> My guess is that the fetish would be a slight bit larger than a penny.
->> :) And to reiterate what Erik said in his last paragraph, if the
->> fetish were totally enveloped by the mages aura, it would IMO (and
->> Erik's :) lose its connection to the astral plane (the source of
->> magical energy) and probably not work.
->>
->I am just going to point this out now. This rule does not hold in SR3, and
->you may wish to keep that in mind.

How about the rule that magically active auras block astral
movement? An interpretation of this is that if a magically active object
is placed within another astrally active object (like a focus in a mage,
or a focus in a paracritter) their natures will attempt to bring them into
a state where they can co-exist, primarily through temporarily 'turning
off' the focus, or by not allowing the mage to perceive/project
(Hmmmmm... this gives me an idea....) while the object is in their body.
Also, I just read something that GMs can have fun with: Pg. 174,
2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence. If you skin a Juggernaut, the hide acts as
an astral barrier, regardless of whether or not the juggernaut is alive.
Neat, huh?

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 14
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 12:31:53 -0500
From: Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Date: Wednesday, October 21, 1998 12:06 PM

>Also, I just read something that GMs can have fun with: Pg. 174,
>2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence. If you skin a Juggernaut, the hide
>acts as an astral barrier, regardless of whether or not the
>juggernaut is alive. Neat, huh?

Yeah...all you have to do is survive the hunting expedition....

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 15
From: Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 12:48:52 -0700
: If I may address the above in revers order, I disagree with the
:visible aspect. Back in SR1 it even indicated that foci were neither
:visible nor tangible to mundanes.

Which is now directly countermanded in SR3, and always lead to logical
inconsitancies anyhow. I think "visable" is a good guidline both
symbolically and for game balance. Just my opnion.

If a mage actually took the time and
:expense to have customer 'ware created using enchanting guidelines [you
:thought delta grade was expensive and/or obscure!], then they should be
able
:to have cybernetic foci. again, these would be permanently active,
barring
:the development of a detect thoughts spell (great idea, k), with all the
:attendant liabilities.

Acording to SR3, you could probaly grab regular cyber, enchant it, and
implant it, given the right formula. The "thought link" would not be
needed, because you just have to be "holding" the item to activate it.
The focus design might require taking the exact implant location /
patient, etc, into account- and, surgery results not being completely
predictable, that might be impossible. We have had folks enchant a blade
for retractable cyberspurs (we play that the balde part is replacable)-
that is a "visable" focus, and not technically cyberware (the blade
"anchor" is the cyber).

: on the first issue, i agree that if someone whats to split up the
:parts of their item into components, then yes, they would be able to have
a
:single, contiguous item with the aspects of both focus and fetish. in
that
:case, why don't they also wrap the cane with a snakeskin strip which is
:another focus. this would still allow for a single contiguous item, but
:creates a stacking-type feature. in games i've GM'd, we've disallowed
this
:wrapping feature and others like it unless the proximity of another inert
:(read "non-sentient") magical aura were taken into account during the
design
:phase. one shaman preferred this method because it allowed him to
:eventually create the item he wanted without coming up with all the karma
at
:once.


I don't see why those factors would matter, but a focus designed as a
headless cane would be odd and unique. I'd say you could tie another
focus or bundle of fetishes to a staff power focus, no problem. The
advantage to a combined focus is it is one focus- that means activating
(or disactivating) it turns on / off all functions at once. Its also a
lot tougher in astral combat.

Mongoose
Message no. 16
From: Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 15:19:19 -0700
:>Also, I just read something that GMs can have fun with: Pg. 174,
:>2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence. If you skin a Juggernaut, the hide
:>acts as an astral barrier, regardless of whether or not the
:>juggernaut is alive. Neat, huh?


Er, what book? Me no grok.

Mongoose
Message no. 17
From: Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 16:32:03 -0400
On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, Mongoose wrote:

->:>Also, I just read something that GMs can have fun with: Pg. 174,
->:>2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence. If you skin a Juggernaut, the hide
->:>acts as an astral barrier, regardless of whether or not the
->:>juggernaut is alive. Neat, huh?
->
->
->Er, what book? Me no grok.

Whoops, sorry, BBB3.

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 18
From: Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 15:59:56 -0700
-----Original Message-----
From: Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Date: Wednesday, October 21, 1998 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question


:On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, Mongoose wrote:
:
:->:>Also, I just read something that GMs can have fun with: Pg. 174,
:->:>2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence. If you skin a Juggernaut, the hide
:->:>acts as an astral barrier, regardless of whether or not the
:->:>juggernaut is alive. Neat, huh?
:->
:->
:->Er, what book? Me no grok.
:
: Whoops, sorry, BBB3.
:

I still don't get it. Especially since juggernauts ain't in SR3
(yet), and it does not mention living vs dead at all.

Mongoose
Message no. 19
From: Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 17:11:23 -0400
At 03:59 PM 10-21-98 -0700, you wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
>
>:On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, Mongoose wrote:
>:
>:->:>Also, I just read something that GMs can have fun with: Pg. 174,
>:->:>2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence. If you skin a Juggernaut, the hide
>:->:>acts as an astral barrier, regardless of whether or not the
>:->:>juggernaut is alive. Neat, huh?
>:->
>:->Er, what book? Me no grok.
>:
>: Whoops, sorry, BBB3.
>
> I still don't get it. Especially since juggernauts ain't in SR3
>(yet), and it does not mention living vs dead at all.
>
>Mongoose

I think I see where the confusion is. The sentence in question mentions
the physical basis of an astral barrier and uses paranimal hides as an
example. Fixer has taken that to mean that you can slice the hide off an
astrally-active critter and it's automatically an astral barrier. I don't
think that was the way they meant it, IMO. The implication seems to be
that the paranimal hide is part of a shamanic lodge, which of course
requires the shaman to enchant it and establish the lodge.

Forgive me if I have misinterpreted.

Starjammer | Una salus victus nullam sperare salutem.
starjammer@**********.com | "The one hope of the doomed is not to hope
Marietta, GA | for safety." --Virgil, The Aeneid
Message no. 20
From: Michael vanHulst <Schizi@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:40:57 EDT
In a message dated 10/21/98 1:23:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US writes:

> ->:>Also, I just read something that GMs can have fun with: Pg. 174,
> ->:>2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence. If you skin a Juggernaut, the hide
> ->:>acts as an astral barrier, regardless of whether or not the
> ->:>juggernaut is alive. Neat, huh?
> ->
> ->
> ->Er, what book? Me no grok.
>
> Whoops, sorry, BBB3.
>
I assume you speak of the line "The physical component may consist of ......or
bead curtains, paranormal hides or any other part of a shamanic lodge" so that
as long as the hide is part of a shamanic lodge it is an astral barrier, not
by itself.
Message no. 21
From: Steadfast <laughingman@*******.DE>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 02:45:33 +0200
And so it came to happen that David Cordy wrote:

----------
> > But the penny isn't providing any benefits to the mage (except for
> > maybe a long overdue dose of zinc), and didn't require any surgery.
> > The penny is not altering or magically intersecting with the mages
> > aura in any way.
> >
> But it is a foreign object that has been introduced into the mages body.
> And as Erik stated, "Peg legs cost Essence, according to Cyberpirates.
So
> why wouldn't a gem or something implanted in a person cost Essence? That
> strikes me a silly and badly out of tune with the spirit of the game and
the
> rules.
> No, I'd say any implantation would have to cost Essence..."
> And how does implantation differ from swallowing? Again, they both
insert
> an object into the mages system, the difference is in the delivery
method.
> And it can't be due simply to surgery. Mages can get simple or moderate
> surgery without risk, or with very little risk, of essence loss. And as
I
> stated in another post, what about everyone's friend, the cortex bomb?

If you swallow, the object beeing swallowed is intended to leave the
bodysystem on either way. if it gets stuck you have serious problems and
need probably medical attention. If you implant something into someone it
is not intended to get out of th body. Exception here are most of the bone
implants like titaniumimplants that are meant just to give prope stability
to th bonstructure while it rebuilds itself. After that it usualy gets
operated back out of the body.
But than if you ask about essence costs, an implant today thatgets
implanted on the bonestructure soleley is more or less routine. Looking at
the essence costs for the various Cyberwares I see that most of the cyber
that do not needs to be connected to the brain seems to be quite friendly
in essence considering the massive structural damage a Body needs to
sustain when a Bone Lacing is performed for example. Maybe that is a
measurement for how much something costs. If it needs to be connected to
the Brain or to other vital parts of the nervoussystem or organs than it
costs essence, quite much. If it is something that can be connected to the
bonestructure alone it costs less or nothing (that would be an explanation
for the cortex bomb, wouldn't it be?). Just some thoughts.

> > My guess is that the fetish would be a slight bit larger than a penny.
> > :) And to reiterate what Erik said in his last paragraph, if the
> > fetish were totally enveloped by the mages aura, it would IMO (and
> > Erik's :) lose its connection to the astral plane (the source of
> > magical energy) and probably not work.
> >
> Is there a limit either way on what size a fetish can be? I don't think
> that I have ever seen one, but I have to admit that I have never really
> looked through the rules for one. As for the aura argument, what IYO
would
> happen in the following case. A troll mage has a fetish that is the size
of
> a coffee cup (4-6 oz.), much bigger then the penny tried earlier. Now he
> wants to sneak his new toy past a warded door. Can he simply stuff the
cup
> sized fetish in his mouth and walk through the ward? Remember, the aura
of
> the fetish is now "totally enveloped" by the troll mages aura.

Actually I do not see the problem with that. It seems that Foci and the
like have only a astral presence when turned on (SR3rd. page 190, 1st
column, ACTIVATION), that is if one interprets it that way. And so the
Fetish has just a presence when it is 'turned on', as it is used. That is
for such a short time that it can be neglected to have any game effects. Of
course if you say that for sustaining spells you need a fetish (the mage
has taken the spell fetishwise) you can say he needs the fetish all the
time. But than, at what time is the fetish used up? If the caster decides
to walk around for three minutes, say invisible, it is ok for the fetish to
give all of the time power to the spell. But if you sustain a Trid Phantasm
for 10 hours it is not alright as that fetish would need to have a bigger
batery or such in comparison to the invisibility fetish mentioned earlier
by myself. So I say you need the power of the fetish just in the moment of
the spell being cast and therefore need to activate that fetish just once,
and that makes the fetish short but brightly shinig on the astral plane.
If you like you sure can say it just sparkled a bit but, hey, just do as
you please;o).
So no prob in sneaking past that ward unless he want's to take a look at it
astraly.

> Sorry if I am coming off kinda strong, but I like to have some ideas of
how
> the rules can be broken and fixed, before my players simply find the
holes.
> Thanks

Hm, just no prob at all. Questions are there to be asked. And holes need to
be fixed, thats natures law if you look at black holes in space ;o)

--->Steadfast
to be "human" is not a state of living
I want to achieve.
Message no. 22
From: Steadfast <laughingman@*******.DE>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 02:27:16 +0200
And so it came to happen that Fixer wrote:

----------

> On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, K in the Shadows wrote:
<snip>
> How about the rule that magically active auras block astral
> movement? An interpretation of this is that if a magically active object
> is placed within another astrally active object (like a focus in a mage,
> or a focus in a paracritter) their natures will attempt to bring them
into
> a state where they can co-exist, primarily through temporarily 'turning
> off' the focus, or by not allowing the mage to perceive/project
> (Hmmmmm... this gives me an idea....) while the object is in their body.
> Also, I just read something that GMs can have fun with: Pg. 174,
> 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence. If you skin a Juggernaut, the hide acts as
> an astral barrier, regardless of whether or not the juggernaut is alive.
> Neat, huh?

Hm. Just looked it up and it sounded to me that those materials are
actually just the material that needs to be used for building a ward or in
that example a lodge or hermetic circle and not a ward in itself. And you
still have to live to tell the tale of skinning a Juggernaut;o)

--->Steadfast
to be "human" is not a state of living
I want to achieve.
Message no. 23
From: Sempai Arishu <radowshun@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 18:18:21 PDT
> And then you could implant foci, and make your cyberware INTO
foci...
>
> IMO, this is a bad thing to allow. I can't see a clear cut rule
>against it, but it seems to me focus or fetish should be a VISABLE
symbol
>of magic power.
look in the log thingy of all the posts for turning cyberware into
foci and fetishes etc. Posts by wilbur cornholio, shot down like so much
dead duck
sempai

Question?
Questioningly questioning a question,
is the question answered questioned
or the question questioned answered?
just a question......


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 24
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 11:25:16 +1000
Sempai Arishu writes:
> look in the log thingy of all the posts for turning cyberware into
> foci and fetishes etc. Posts by wilbur cornholio, shot down like so much
> dead duck

With all due respect to Wilbur, the bulk of the Great Cornhole's posts were
intended by _him_ to be shot down like so much dead duck.

The easiest rule re: cyberware to foci is that you can't exactly do it
_after_ the ware has been implanted, and that doing it before hand is a
waste as the cybernetic integration changes the object enough that it is no
longer a foci. If you want to do this sort of thing, make it into a
reasonably small object, and embed it in you somewhere. There's lots of
places in the abdomen where you could insert an object, provided it's in an
inert container. Or you could put inside a cyberarm/leg.

With SR3, and the removal of grounding as a threat (for now), this strategy
is probably a lot more viable.

--
Duct tape is like the Force: There's a Light side, a Dark side, and it
binds the Universe together.
Robert Watkins -- robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 25
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 01:02:46 EDT
In a message dated 10/21/1998 12:07:44 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US writes:

> How about the rule that magically active auras block astral
> movement? An interpretation of this is that if a magically active object
> is placed within another astrally active object (like a focus in a mage,
> or a focus in a paracritter) their natures will attempt to bring them into
> a state where they can co-exist, primarily through temporarily 'turning
> off' the focus, or by not allowing the mage to perceive/project
> (Hmmmmm... this gives me an idea....) while the object is in their body.
> Also, I just read something that GMs can have fun with: Pg. 174,
> 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence. If you skin a Juggernaut, the hide acts as
> an astral barrier, regardless of whether or not the juggernaut is alive.
> Neat, huh?

The comparison between what would be "the average person's body" (and it's
related aura) vs. the aura of a Juggernaut is not compatible except with
regards to pointing out that one is magically more powerful than the other
(unless of course the hide belongs to "an average Immortal Elf" (shrug).

And as for astrally active objects impeding each others' movement, you are
correct, but perhaps you should consider this comparison. You and I and most
people -I- communicate with anyway, are beings that share an existence upon a
given plane of existence. Astrally Active beings are those that share an
existance upon a given plane of existence as well. Beings that do not share
an active existence with one another do not impede the other, at least not to
the full benefit. I believe that because "Life" gives off the energies that
are reflected in the astral mediums to an extent, is why there is *some*
impedance to astral objects, but not equivalent to astrally active objects.

All the current rules direct me to this conclusion at least.

-K
Message no. 26
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 01:19:12 EDT
In a message dated 10/21/1998 7:53:00 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
laughingman@*******.DE writes:

>
> > On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, K in the Shadows wrote:
> <snip>

I just wanted to point out that the remark I have snipped about paranimal
hides (Juggernaut in particular) are NOT from me....

> Hm. Just looked it up and it sounded to me that those materials are
> actually just the material that needs to be used for building a ward or in
> that example a lodge or hermetic circle and not a ward in itself. And you
> still have to live to tell the tale of skinning a Juggernaut;o)

I agree with your comment here however about the intent of the paragraph.
However, I *do* remember a game I had involving a Juggernaut and an Appaloosa.
Before it was all over, the appaloosa had a new garage, completely with astral
barriers.... ;)

-K
Message no. 27
From: Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 07:09:43 -0400
On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, Mongoose wrote:

->-----Original Message-----
->From: Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
->To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
->Date: Wednesday, October 21, 1998 1:23 PM
->Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
->
->
->:On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, Mongoose wrote:
->:
->:->:>Also, I just read something that GMs can have fun with: Pg. 174,
->:->:>2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence. If you skin a Juggernaut, the hide
->:->:>acts as an astral barrier, regardless of whether or not the
->:->:>juggernaut is alive. Neat, huh?
->:->
->:->
->:->Er, what book? Me no grok.
->:
->: Whoops, sorry, BBB3.
->:
->
-> I still don't get it. Especially since juggernauts ain't in SR3
->(yet), and it does not mention living vs dead at all.

It does state that paranormal hides (you are correct it doesn't
say living or dead, and therefore it must not matter) will block astral
movement. It also says that that books doesn't make any old books
obsolete unless the rules in BBB3 override those rules. I somehow doubt,
in the SR3 universe, that in 2058 (or whenever) all the Juggernauts
disappeared only to return in 2060 (or whenever) just because FASA
released the new Critter's section in the GM screen.

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 28
From: Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 07:30:20 -0400
->And so it came to happen that Fixer wrote:
->
->> How about the rule that magically active auras block astral
->> movement? An interpretation of this is that if a magically active object
->> is placed within another astrally active object (like a focus in a mage,
->> or a focus in a paracritter) their natures will attempt to bring them
->into
->> a state where they can co-exist, primarily through temporarily 'turning
->> off' the focus, or by not allowing the mage to perceive/project
->> (Hmmmmm... this gives me an idea....) while the object is in their body.

I snipped the rest as I never got anyone to comment on this idea.
I believe this would work because of the intersection of auras. If the
foci is active when it is ingested, the mage cannot perceive or project
due to attempting to superimpose their aura over that of the focus. If
the foci is inactive, the mage can't access it. Feasible? Might be a way
to keep those peky mages trapped in their bodies ("Here, feed him this
fetish focus.... we don't need him projecting on us....").

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 29
From: Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 07:36:36 -0400
On Thu, 22 Oct 1998, Robert Watkins wrote:

<delete Sempai>
->The easiest rule re: cyberware to foci is that you can't exactly do it
->_after_ the ware has been implanted, and that doing it before hand is a
->waste as the cybernetic integration changes the object enough that it is no
->longer a foci. If you want to do this sort of thing, make it into a
->reasonably small object, and embed it in you somewhere. There's lots of
->places in the abdomen where you could insert an object, provided it's in an
->inert container. Or you could put inside a cyberarm/leg.
->
->With SR3, and the removal of grounding as a threat (for now), this strategy
->is probably a lot more viable.

Ooooooooo.... how about a foci in the form of a gemstone being
implanted in your navel..... Belly-dancing shaman.... wheeeeeeee!!!!!!!

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 30
From: Sean McCrohan <mccrohan@*****.OIT.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 07:38:32 -0400
Quoting Fixer (fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US):
> It does state that paranormal hides (you are correct it doesn't
> say living or dead, and therefore it must not matter) will block astral
> movement. It also says that that books doesn't make any old books
> obsolete unless the rules in BBB3 override those rules. I somehow doubt,
> in the SR3 universe, that in 2058 (or whenever) all the Juggernauts
> disappeared only to return in 2060 (or whenever) just because FASA
> released the new Critter's section in the GM screen.

Sorry, Fixer, I think you're wrong on this one. It states that
paranormal animal hides, *in the specific context of a shamanic lodge
materials*, block astral movement. I don't think you'd argue that all
curtains of beads (one of the other examples given) would block astral
travel if they're not part of a lodge, so you can't argue that for the
hides, either, based on that passage.

--Sean

--
Sean McCrohan (mccrohan@**.gatech.edu) | "He uses his folly as a stalking
Grad Student, Human-Computer Interaction | horse, and under the presentation
Georgia Institute of Technology | of that he shoots his wit."
http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/~smccrohan | _As You Like It_, Act 5 Sc 4
Message no. 31
From: Sean McCrohan <mccrohan@*****.OIT.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 07:47:29 -0400
Quoting Fixer (fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US):
> Ooooooooo.... how about a foci in the form of a gemstone being
> implanted in your navel..... Belly-dancing shaman.... wheeeeeeee!!!!!!!

Heh.

Actually, I would probably allow gemstone or other similar foci to
be swallowed or surgically implanted. It has precedent in mythology
(especially for something like a pearl), and seems to 'fit' decently well.
However, to balance it out, I'd probably rule that if the focus is
targetted from the astral, either the mage has to resist the attacks
also (if you're mean) or the mage automatically takes any overflow
damage aimed at the focus, with no chance to resist (if you're still mean,
but want it to be obvious less often). How do I justify those? Easy -
I don't :) They just sort of make sense. If you need to justify it, say that
the focus, being inside the body, develops a greater tie to the mage's
aura, and that damage to the focus bleeds over and disrupts their aura much
as a combat spell would.

--Sean

--
Sean McCrohan (mccrohan@**.gatech.edu) | "He uses his folly as a stalking
Grad Student, Human-Computer Interaction | horse, and under the presentation
Georgia Institute of Technology | of that he shoots his wit."
http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/~smccrohan | _As You Like It_, Act 5 Sc 4
Message no. 32
From: Steadfast <laughingman@*******.DE>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 21:09:29 +0200
And so it came to happen that Fixer wrote in reply to Robert Watkins:

----------
<snip>
> ->The easiest rule re: cyberware to foci is that you can't exactly do it
> ->_after_ the ware has been implanted, and that doing it before hand is a
> ->waste as the cybernetic integration changes the object enough that it
is no
> ->longer a foci. If you want to do this sort of thing, make it into a
> ->reasonably small object, and embed it in you somewhere. There's lots of
> ->places in the abdomen where you could insert an object, provided it's
in an
> ->inert container. Or you could put inside a cyberarm/leg.
> ->
> ->With SR3, and the removal of grounding as a threat (for now), this
strategy
> ->is probably a lot more viable.
>
> Ooooooooo.... how about a foci in the form of a gemstone being
> implanted in your navel..... Belly-dancing shaman.... wheeeeeeee!!!!!!!

Good Idea, just make this 'implant' a piercing! Their ya go, no problems
anymore (scratches head...hm, maybe an earring? Nah, to easy to recognise,
but those 'naughty bits' seem about right to use for that ;o))

--->Steadfast
to be "human" is not a state of living
I want to achieve.
Message no. 33
From: Steadfast <laughingman@*******.DE>
Subject: Re: Foci and Fetish question
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 21:09:36 +0200
And so it came to happen that Fixer wrote:

----------
> I snipped the rest as I never got anyone to comment on this idea.
> I believe this would work because of the intersection of auras. If the
> foci is active when it is ingested, the mage cannot perceive or project
> due to attempting to superimpose their aura over that of the focus. If
> the foci is inactive, the mage can't access it. Feasible? Might be a
way
> to keep those peky mages trapped in their bodies ("Here, feed him this
> fetish focus.... we don't need him projecting on us....").

Hm. But what if a mage could try it, assensing while having an active foci
inside his body. I think of something like two magnet, both very strong and
polarized both positive (or negative). You have one magnet inside a bowl
that is an electrical magnet. You turn on the 'bowl-magnet'... Ugly, hm
>:->
--->Steadfast
to be "human" is not a state of living
I want to achieve.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Foci and Fetish question, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

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

Thwap!