Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Georg Greve <ggreve@*******.HANSE.DE>
Subject: Re: Grounding Spells (summary)
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 01:35:51 +0100
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 01:35:48 +0100 (MET)

> Tom Dowd definitely. Check the DLoH answers (they're archvied somewhere
> related to the list but I don't have a URL for them). If the "spell"
> being grounded through doesn't have a physical manifestation the magical
> energies you're sending down the pipe have nowhere to go. You'll kill
> the sustained spell if you overcome it, but nothing else will happen.
> This only applies to spells sustained without a focus, normally
> sustained or quickenings; spell locks have the focus which serves the
> purpose of a physical manifestation.
Oh come on - the books don't have anything to do with the RPG, every
book violates the rules several times, because the author never even
tried to read/understand them. The books say clearly that grounding
through spells is not possible, because:

A.) Nothing that was created by spellcasting is a valid bridge, so
only spells that weren't cast COULD be bridges

B.) Only things that have a PHYSICAl COMPONENT could be used for
grounding through - physcial components are things that even exist if
the magic is deactivated. Show me the physical component for a
deactivated spell, hence only ITEMS like foci and anchored items are
valid for grounding

C.) Spells can ONLY be broken by attacking or dispelling them - this
means grounding through a focus would break the link, but if you
ground through a spell the spell would continue working

D.) Spells CAN NEVER be cast at spells

If Tom Dowd sometimes said that it's possible I'm sure it was on some
convention where he had to answer between 100-1000 questions in 2
minutes and all this stuff was getting on his nerves. So anyone asked
him whether grounding was possible in this "say yes if you don't want
to be called a dumbhead" manner and he just said yes, because he
didn't think about it quietly and probably didn't even know the rules.

O.K. - that's it, I suppose...
Georg
Message no. 2
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Grounding Spells (summary)
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 10:29:27 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "GG" == Georg Greve <ggreve@*******.HANSE.DE> writes:

>> Tom Dowd definitely. Check the DLoH answers (they're archvied somewhere
>> related to the list but I don't have a URL for them). [...]
GG> Oh come on - the books don't have anything to do with the RPG,

I'm not talking about the novels, I'm talking about questions like this
asked of Tom Dowd. They're archived with the names DLoH-answers, or some
such.

[...]

GG> A.) Nothing that was created by spellcasting is a valid bridge, so
GG> only spells that weren't cast COULD be bridges

The magical energy conduit, the one that powers the spell in the first
place, is just such a bridge, if it is in existance for a sufficient
duration. To reiterate myself, it is a dual-natured entity: it has an
astral presence, the "inlet" for energy to flow into; it has a physical
presence, the "outlet" for energy to flow out of into the mage casting
the spell. Since it has both a physical presence and an astral presence,
it is a dual-natured entity. Since it is a dual-natured entity it may be
possible to ground through it. When casting an instant spell it does not
exist long enough to target; but when sustaining or quickening a spell
it does. Therefore this conduit may be grounded through if it is
attached to a sustained or quickened spell.
.
. . QED

GG> B.) Only things that have a PHYSICAl COMPONENT could be used for
GG> grounding through - physcial components are things that even exist
GG> if the magic is deactivated.

You're confusing the word "physical" with the meaning "presence in the
physical world". A dual-natured entity has both an astral presence and a
physical presence, even if for some reason the physical presence is
noncorporeal.

GG> Show me the physical component for a deactivated spell, hence only
GG> ITEMS like foci and anchored items are valid for grounding

Show me the physical component of an active spell lock. You can't
because I'm not a mage; the lock becomes noncorporeal when it is
activated, yet it is still a dual-natured entity and can be grounded
through.

GG> C.) Spells can ONLY be broken by attacking or dispelling them - this
GG> means grounding through a focus would break the link, but if you
GG> ground through a spell the spell would continue working

Not if you overcome it. If you do you disrupt whatever is sustaining the
spell and it collapses, regardless of whether your attack actually
grounds out.

GG> D.) Spells CAN NEVER be cast at spells

I never disagreed. Grounding occours through other aspects of the magic,
not the spell itself, the dual-natured energy conduit in the case of a
sustained or quickened spell, not the spell itself. This conduit serves
the exact same purpose and meets the exact same criteria for being a
dual-natured entity as a spell lock focus, as previously described.

GG> If Tom Dowd sometimes said that it's possible I'm sure it was on
GG> some convention where he had to answer between 100-1000 questions in
GG> 2 minutes and all this stuff was getting on his nerves.

Nope, it was in person, not at a con, where he had plenty of time to
consider his answer.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4beta, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBMH0mPJ6VRH7BJMxHAQFeRAP/edK1pClNSR9d6+515e1/P5IMsoRMH7oB
nDdXRek8JMigsnjhb1F7cMdKFjUy4QeyQf9Bfbtla+ETX7V3mVh0gc+uBWXb1OA/
R32xl0o6/xSrmUl6r0RiPh7sXdTS/9DQAjrAzN5/0fGmjAQGvS9FtdGXysKDyBxa
9K6iOnaON4M=
=iBc+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> \ Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! \
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox/ \
Message no. 3
From: Craig S Dohmen <dohmen@*******.CSE.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Grounding Spells (summary)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 11:21:33 -0400
On Wed, 11 Oct 1995, Georg Greve wrote:

> Oh come on - the books don't have anything to do with the RPG, every

What do you mean 'the books'. If you mean the novels, then you're
correct. The original poster didn't say anything about the novels
or any book for that matter. He was talking about what Tom Dowd, the
(former) SR developer said on the topic. This is about as 'official'
as you can get short of seeing it in print. I propose we stop the
whole argument until Awakenings comes out and hope there's some
clarification in there. Then, whoever is right can jump up and down
yelling, "I told you so, I told you so. Nyah Nyah!" :)

> If Tom Dowd sometimes said that it's possible I'm sure it was on some
> convention where he had to answer between 100-1000 questions in 2
> minutes and all this stuff was getting on his nerves. So anyone asked

No, I was there. The audience doesn't ask THAT many questions, and the
FASA people usually answer the question fairly thouroughly. Also, Tom Dowd
and Steve Kenson (author of Awakenings) agree that grounding is possible.

> to be called a dumbhead" manner and he just said yes, because he
> didn't think about it quietly and probably didn't even know the rules.

He is/was the developer. I hope he knows the bloody rules.

--Craig
Message no. 4
From: Georg Greve <ggreve@*******.HANSE.DE>
Subject: Re: Grounding Spells (summary)
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 17:53:12 +0100
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 17:53:08 +0100 (MET)

> I'm not talking about the novels, I'm talking about questions like this
> asked of Tom Dowd. They're archived with the names DLoH-answers, or some
> such.

But in his books he shows that he has no clue about the rules, so
asking him in a rules question is pretty silly.

> The magical energy conduit, the one that powers the spell in the first
> place, is just such a bridge, if it is in existance for a sufficient
> duration. To reiterate myself, it is a dual-natured entity: it has an
> astral presence, the "inlet" for energy to flow into; it has a physical
> presence, the "outlet" for energy to flow out of into the mage casting

This is wrong. The energy doesn't flow neccessarily into the mage. It
can flow anywhere or nowhere. All that's sure is that the spell exists
in the astral plane.

> the spell. Since it has both a physical presence and an astral presence,
> it is a dual-natured entity. Since it is a dual-natured entity it may be

Dual-natured entities have to be TANGIBLE and TOUCHABLE - and don't
tell this "the mage is the tangible component" crap, he's a mage and
not a spell. If spells were dual natured, every mundane could TOUCH
them and even DESTROY them in HTH.

> possible to ground through it. When casting an instant spell it does not
> exist long enough to target; but when sustaining or quickening a spell
> it does. Therefore this conduit may be grounded through if it is
> attached to a sustained or quickened spell.

By the way - it doesn't say "Spellcasting con never create a bridge
for the first 2 seconds" or something the like, it says "Spellcasting
can never CREATE a bridge". This is as clear as it gets, because it
says: "Whatever was created by spellcasting cannot be a bridge".

> . . QED

Sorry, but you proved nothing.

> You're confusing the word "physical" with the meaning "presence in the
> physical world". A dual-natured entity has both an astral presence and a
> physical presence, even if for some reason the physical presence is
> noncorporeal.

Really ? Who is confusing things ? Everything in the astral has an
effect on the mundane plane (that's the magical point of view) but you
cannot ground through trees or walls or flies or whatever. The books
explain the effect of grounding through by the physical COMPONENTS of
foci and anchored items. Show me a physical COMPONENT of a spell.

> GG> C.) Spells can ONLY be broken by attacking or dispelling them - this
> GG> means grounding through a focus would break the link, but if you
> GG> ground through a spell the spell would continue working
> Not if you overcome it. If you do you disrupt whatever is sustaining the
> spell and it collapses, regardless of whether your attack actually
> grounds out.

Wrong. Look at the grimmy: "The ONLY (repeat: ONLY) way to break a
sustained/quickened spell is by attacking it (HTH) and by dispelling."
This implies that spells that were used for grounding through still
exist.

> GG> D.) Spells CAN NEVER be cast at spells
> I never disagreed. Grounding occours through other aspects of the magic,
> not the spell itself, the dual-natured energy conduit in the case of a
> sustained or quickened spell, not the spell itself. This conduit serves
> the exact same purpose and meets the exact same criteria for being a
> dual-natured entity as a spell lock focus, as previously described.

No, this is wrong. A spell lock is something absolutely different,
it becomes invisible and intangible when activated (that's part of
it's power), but it's still there and it has a physical component that
still exists - even if the spell lock is deactivated !
And of course you cast spells at spells. If the spell is building the
bridge you cast it AT the bridge (just like AT the focus) which is a
spell in your example. The spell grounds out *centered* on the place
where the bridge is - did you ever think about that ? It is because
you cast the spell at the bridge (main target) and the pure force of
this attack is too much for the poor focus/anchored item to take and
for a short instance you let YOUR spell flow through that bridge
(which then collapses due to the overstress) and it grounds out into
the mundane plane, because it has physical components, which allow
this special effect.

Before I forget about it: There is the general rule "Spells can never
be cast across the barrier between the astral and the mundane plane"
and there are 2 special rules: A.) "foci create bridges" and B.)
"anchored items create bridges". Noone was able to show me the
"sustained spells create bridges" or "quickened spells create bridges"
paragraphs. I don't have to prove that you can't ground through, YOU
have to PROVE that you can ground through by showing me where it is in
the books. Of course you may play it as you like and if your group is
happy with the rules, it's O.K. - that's what they say in every
sourcebook: "Change the rules if you like".

Bye...
Georg
Message no. 5
From: Georg Greve <ggreve@*******.HANSE.DE>
Subject: Re: Grounding Spells (summary)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 20:16:40 +0100
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 20:16:37 +0100 (MET)

> What do you mean 'the books'. If you mean the novels, then you're
> correct. The original poster didn't say anything about the novels
> or any book for that matter. He was talking about what Tom Dowd, the
> (former) SR developer said on the topic. This is about as 'official'
> as you can get short of seeing it in print. I propose we stop the

If you take a good look at the stuff that's out already and if you
look at the game balance, the whole discussion is obsolete. Grounding
through spells violates some rules AND kills the game balance - what
could be worse ??

> whole argument until Awakenings comes out and hope there's some
> clarification in there. Then, whoever is right can jump up and down

I only hope they stay in line with the things they said before, but
the system is deteriorating with every new sourcebook.

> No, I was there. The audience doesn't ask THAT many questions, and the
> FASA people usually answer the question fairly thouroughly. Also, Tom Dowd
> and Steve Kenson (author of Awakenings) agree that grounding is possible.

Yeah - Tom Dowd allows casting spells at things without astral
presence, too - which is in line with grounding through spells - but I
think it's bad if they first make rules and then break them by making
other rules.

> He is/was the developer. I hope he knows the bloody rules.

Look at Burning Bright. When he wrote that one he obviously didn't
know about them or didn't care about them. However: This does not
qualify him as "rule-proof".

Bye...
Georg
Message no. 6
From: Craig S Dohmen <dohmen@*******.CSE.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Grounding Spells (summary)
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 10:43:51 -0400
On Thu, 12 Oct 1995, Georg Greve wrote:

> But in his books he shows that he has no clue about the rules, so
> asking him in a rules question is pretty silly.

Drat, forgot to get Burning Bright off my friend this weekend.

> Dual-natured entities have to be TANGIBLE and TOUCHABLE - and don't
> tell this "the mage is the tangible component" crap, he's a mage and
> not a spell. If spells were dual natured, every mundane could TOUCH
> them and even DESTROY them in HTH.

Ok, then you can't ground through an active spell lock, either. After
all, mundanes can't touch them...

> says: "Whatever was created by spellcasting cannot be a bridge".

It doesn't.

> Really ? Who is confusing things ? Everything in the astral has an
> effect on the mundane plane (that's the magical point of view)

Backwards. Everything physical has an astral image (the aura). That's
just what it is...an image or reflection, not a conduit.

> it becomes invisible and intangible when activated (that's part of
> it's power), but it's still there and it has a physical component that
> still exists - even if the spell lock is deactivated !

It's invisible and intangible, but it's still there? Really?

> sourcebook: "Change the rules if you like".

I'm not changing them, I'm interpreting them.

--Craig
Message no. 7
From: Craig S Dohmen <dohmen@*******.CSE.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Grounding Spells (summary)
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 10:48:51 -0400
On Fri, 13 Oct 1995, Georg Greve wrote:

> look at the game balance, the whole discussion is obsolete. Grounding
> through spells violates some rules AND kills the game balance - what
> could be worse ??

I STILL can't see how it kills game balance. Maybe in your game,
people can afford locks and foci. Not me.

> Yeah - Tom Dowd allows casting spells at things without astral
> presence, too - which is in line with grounding through spells - but I
> think it's bad if they first make rules and then break them by making
> other rules.

I'm _really_ going to have to get Burning Bright back. If he screwed
up this badly, I'm going to be on the phone. :)

--Craig
Message no. 8
From: The Digital Mage <mn3rge@****.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Grounding Spells (summary)
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 16:16:25 +0000
On Mon, 23 Oct 1995, Craig S Dohmen wrote:

> Ok, then you can't ground through an active spell lock, either. After
> all, mundanes can't touch them...
But the rulebook, or at least a sourcebook has specifically stated that
spell locks can be grounded through. Specific rules take priority over
general rules so spell locks do count and the physical component argument
is still intact (especially if you look at the amount of times "physical
component" is written in the spells and astral space essay).


> > it becomes invisible and intangible when activated (that's part of
> > it's power), but it's still there and it has a physical component that
> > still exists - even if the spell lock is deactivated !
>
> It's invisible and intangible, but it's still there? Really?
Yes. If it isn't there where did it go? :)

> > sourcebook: "Change the rules if you like".
>
> I'm not changing them, I'm interpreting them.
And that is the crux of it -different interpretations differ, some people
go for the "what does the logic of magic as stated by FASA dictate should
be possible?" while others may go fo the "what do the rules as stated by
FASA allow?".


The Digital Mage : mn3rge@****.ac.uk
Shadowrun Web Site under construction at
http://www.bath.ac.uk/~mn3rge/Shadowrun.html
Message no. 9
From: The Digital Mage <mn3rge@****.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Grounding Spells (summary)
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 16:30:24 +0000
On Mon, 23 Oct 1995, Craig S Dohmen wrote:

> I STILL can't see how it kills game balance. Maybe in your game,
> people can afford locks and foci. Not me.
Quickenings as I see them should have major advantages over spell locks,
and if you're an initiate you've probably had time to build up a fair
amount of nuyen along with all that karma you needed, so the cost
advantage isn't a biggy. And the advantage of HAVING to put in at least a
number of karma points equal to force into a quickening to some extent
offsets the fact that the karma makes it harder to break. And the fact
that quickenings cannot be turned off is a real disadvantage -which is
only offset by the fact that you can't ground through them.

At present players will always choose spell locks over quickenings for
spells such as invisibility, barrier, mask, levitate and so on. And if
quickenings make you vulnerable to grounding some players I know would
break the quickenings after they've got the use out of it much like they
currently do with spell locks -the trouble is, for that bullet barrier 6 a
spell lock only costs 1 karma but the quickening costs at LEAST 6 karma
points -I'd rather pay the nuyen and choose teh spell lock, hell as FASA
have written it you can re-use them if you simply break the bonding.

So by making Quickenings groundable quite often spell locks will be better.

Besides the rules quite clearly say that a physical component is needed
-where is the quickenings phys comp? And it ain't the mage as the mage is
his aura's physical comp.

> > Yeah - Tom Dowd allows casting spells at things without astral
> > presence, too - which is in line with grounding through spells - but I
> > think it's bad if they first make rules and then break them by making
> > other rules.
>
> I'm _really_ going to have to get Burning Bright back. If he screwed
> up this badly, I'm going to be on the phone. :)
>
Hell, even the rulebooks contradict themselves -in Corp Sec book the Sec
Mage orders a watcher to manifest and press a button if it detects an
astral intruder! Face it the rule writers don't always get it right
themsleves -but if its rule writer's opinions you want then I'll forward
something from rec.games.frp.cyber.

The Digital Mage : mn3rge@****.ac.uk
Shadowrun Web Site under construction at
http://www.bath.ac.uk/~mn3rge/Shadowrun.html
Message no. 10
From: Craig S Dohmen <dohmen@*******.CSE.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Grounding Spells (summary)
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 14:41:02 -0400
On Mon, 23 Oct 1995, The Digital Mage wrote:

> general rules so spell locks do count and the physical component argument
> is still intact (especially if you look at the amount of times "physical

Yes, but if the spell lock is non-corporeal, where is the physical
component?

> > It's invisible and intangible, but it's still there? Really?
> Yes. If it isn't there where did it go? :)

Dunno. Where _does_ it go? In fact, that's a pretty good question.
Does it slip wholesale into astral space or does it just maintain
some sort of Somebody Else's Problem field so mundanes can't touch it?

--Craig
Message no. 11
From: Craig S Dohmen <dohmen@*******.CSE.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Grounding Spells (summary)
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 14:48:07 -0400
On Mon, 23 Oct 1995, The Digital Mage wrote:

> and if you're an initiate you've probably had time to build up a fair
> amount of nuyen along with all that karma you needed, so the cost

Ha ha! I was always too busy making Lifestyle payments. :)

> At present players will always choose spell locks over quickenings for

Nah, I never used spell locks at all. Too dangerous. I'm chicken.

> spell lock only costs 1 karma but the quickening costs at LEAST 6 karma
> points -I'd rather pay the nuyen and choose teh spell lock, hell as FASA

Quickenings are STILL safer. Like I said, I'm chicken. :)

> -where is the quickenings phys comp? And it ain't the mage as the mage is
> his aura's physical comp.

That doesn't preclude him being the physical component for something else,
too.

> Hell, even the rulebooks contradict themselves -in Corp Sec book the Sec
> Mage orders a watcher to manifest and press a button if it detects an

Well, Corp. Sec. was written by a freelance, so I guess we can give
_him_ some slack.

--Craig
Message no. 12
From: The Digital Mage <mn3rge@****.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Grounding Spells (summary)
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 19:29:23 +0000
On Mon, 23 Oct 1995, Craig S Dohmen wrote:

> > and if you're an initiate you've probably had time to build up a fair
> > amount of nuyen along with all that karma you needed, so the cost
>
> Ha ha! I was always too busy making Lifestyle payments. :)
Thats what I like to see, a player who actually roleplays enough to think
'Hell, this lower lifestyle thing is kinda shitty!' :)


> > At present players will always choose spell locks over quickenings for
>
> Nah, I never used spell locks at all. Too dangerous. I'm chicken.
My mage Eldritch is like that too, he won't carry any foci except when it
becomes necessary. Ie he'll spell lock a reflexes spell if he knows he's
going into some serious combat or teh like. But as soon as its over he
breaks that bonding -its only one karma point. But if quickenings are
groundable then thast at least karma equal to force, although if he put
6+ karma into it he may consider it safe enough to leave on. All a bit
moot really as he isn't an initiate :)


> Quickenings are STILL safer. Like I said, I'm chicken. :)
Join the club :)

> That doesn't preclude him being the physical component for something else,
> too.
Well thast all in YHO (IMHO) :)


> > Hell, even the rulebooks contradict themselves -in Corp Sec book the Sec
> > Mage orders a watcher to manifest and press a button if it detects an
>
> Well, Corp. Sec. was written by a freelance, so I guess we can give
> _him_ some slack.
Ooh, you're a more generous man than I!!! :)


The Digital Mage : mn3rge@****.ac.uk
Shadowrun Web Site under construction at
http://www.bath.ac.uk/~mn3rge/Shadowrun.html

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Grounding Spells (summary), 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!