Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: High profile guns and magic
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 11:59:34 -0400 (EDT)
On Tue, 14 May 1996, Mike Broadwater wrote:

> Oh, and to actually speak about the topic. No, a character shouldn't walk
> around with a huge gun all the time. That's just stupid and bad role
> playing. A gm should punish the character for it. But they should be able
> to have one in their cache of weapons at home for those times when it's
> necessary to use it. Like wise, it's good to have a force 10 mana bolt to
> throw around when you need to get your ass out of the fire. If you start
> casting it at people on the street, you're going to get LS on you, for the
> same reasons as for a PAC.

Agreed. Keep in mind that there is a target number to notice
spellcasting. If you do level that force 10 manabolt at someone in your
local McHugh's, there will be lots of people seeing it (it's kind of hard
to hide), and later saying to the police, "And then there was this guy,
and he held out his arms, and, and all of a sudden there was a shimmer
around him and the other guy's head exploded, and there were brains all
over the place, and..." Then the police will proceed to get a
description of the offending mage, or footage from security cams, etc.
Then you have a record, even if there's no name or SIN attached to it.
If and when they finally catch you, you'll be held accountable for your
previous transgressions, just as you would had you used a gun.
Also, forensic magic (in Awakenings) makes it a hell of a lot
easier for the cops to identify who cast a spell when they investigate a
crimescene. It is entirely possible that Lone Star will have a nice,
thick, juicy file on you, and a good investigator can be so hot on your
trail that it makes your life *very* inconvenient. And Gods forbid you
should get caught, because any use of magic in a homicide constitutes
premeditation, so you're looking at hard time and a lot of it.

The major difference between high profile guns and high profile
magic is that the guns get spotted whether they are being used or not.
Magic is a bit more subtle in that it only becomes apparent when it's too
late. Either way, there is a time and place for high profile offensive
capability, but it should be applied judiciously and cautiously so as to
minimize your opportunities for screwing yourself.

Just a thought
Marc
Message no. 2
From: "Sascha Pabst" <Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>
Subject: Re: High profile guns and magic
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 19:11:12 +0200
At 17:59 Uhr 15.05.96, Marc A Renouf wrote:
[high power spell will create a record of caster]
>If and when they finally catch you, you'll be held accountable for your
>previous transgressions, just as you would had you used a gun.

Even worse: Lethal Magic is ALWAYS considered Murder 1...


Sascha

--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |The one who does not|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| learn from history |
| \___ __/ | | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | through it again. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 3
From: Tom Pendergrast <pendergr@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: High profile guns and magic
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 14:21:55 -0700 (PDT)
<snip>
> > Like wise, it's good to have a force 10 mana bolt to
> > throw around when you need to get your ass out of the fire. If you start
> > casting it at people on the street, you're going to get LS on you, for the
> > same reasons as for a PAC.
>
> Agreed. Keep in mind that there is a target number to notice
> spellcasting. If you do level that force 10 manabolt at someone in your
> local McHugh's, there will be lots of people seeing it (it's kind of hard
> to hide), and later saying to the police, "And then there was this guy,
> and he held out his arms, and, and all of a sudden there was a shimmer
> around him and the other guy's head exploded, and there were brains all
> over the place, and..." Then the police will proceed to get a
<snip>
> The major difference between high profile guns and high profile
> magic is that the guns get spotted whether they are being used or not.
> Magic is a bit more subtle in that it only becomes apparent when it's too
> late. Either way, there is a time and place for high profile offensive
> capability, but it should be applied judiciously and cautiously so as to
> minimize your opportunities for screwing yourself.

Our mage friend's biggest spell is a force-9(11ex) manabolt. His MR is
14 (17, PF3). 90% of the time, he casts it down to a 6(8) 'bolt... which
is going to be nearly impossible to spot. Even when he casts is at full,
its stil going to be 1 in hundreds to spot... but I fully see your point.


---Tom---

---the ex-double parenthesis guy---
Message no. 4
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.com.au>
Subject: Re: High profile guns and magic
Date: Thu, 16 May 96 11:56:10 +1030
>>If and when they finally catch you, you'll be held accountable for your
>>previous transgressions, just as you would had you used a gun.
>
>Even worse: Lethal Magic is ALWAYS considered Murder 1...

That depends... If you use Stun Bolt, and it happens to kill the guy, you
could be looking at manslaughter instead (intended non-lethal force, and
all that). In addition, there is the self-defense option, but in that
case you have to show that you had no other spells that would work ("He
was 2 meters away, and even if I OverStimulated him into oblivion, he
could probably have shot and killed me!").

But yeah, if you zap someone with Mana Bolt, it's considered a use of
lethal force, which can lead to Murder 1.


--
* *
/_\ "A friend is someone who likes the same TV programs you do" /_\
{~._.~} "Eternal nothingness is fine if you happen {~._.~}
( Y ) to be dressed for it." -- Woody Allen ( Y )
()~*~() Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au ()~*~()
(_)-(_) (_)-(_)
Message no. 5
From: "Sascha Pabst" <Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>
Subject: Re: High profile guns and magic
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 15:03:12 +0200
At 3:26 Uhr 16.05.96, Robert Watkins wrote:
>>Even worse: Lethal Magic is ALWAYS considered Murder 1...
>
>That depends... If you use Stun Bolt, and it happens to kill the guy, you
>could be looking at manslaughter instead (intended non-lethal force, and
>all that). In addition, there is the self-defense option, but in that
>case you have to show that you had no other spells that would work ("He
>was 2 meters away, and even if I OverStimulated him into oblivion, he
>could probably have shot and killed me!").
>
>But yeah, if you zap someone with Mana Bolt, it's considered a use of
>lethal force, which can lead to Murder 1.

I thought I read (I am not sure where, though) that use of harmful
magic is always considered intended lethal force, and therefore
murder1. Maybe I am wrong... could someone help me out here?

Sascha

--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |The one who does not|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| learn from history |
| \___ __/ | | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | through it again. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 6
From: bqtech1@***.pipeline.com (Andrew Ragland)
Subject: Re: High profile guns and magic
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 20:59:42 GMT
On May 16, 1996 11:56:10, 'Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.com.au>' wrote:


>all that). In addition, there is the self-defense option, but in that
>case you have to show that you had no other spells that would work ("He
>was 2 meters away, and even if I OverStimulated him into oblivion, he
>could probably have shot and killed me!").

Depends on where you are. In Tennessee, the retreat to the wall doctrine
has been modified pretty heavily. I'd use the same basic mods for all of
the CAS, as the general philosophy is the same throughout the South. If you
in a public place, you must attempt to get away from the situation until
retreat is no longer possible before lethal force can be justified.
However, if you are in your residence or your place of business, you are
considered to already be at the wall. Nobody should have to flee their home
to preserve their life. Therefore, if someone threatens to kill you, and I
mean seriously is trying to do it, in your home or office, you can kill
them without attempting to flee and plead self-defense. You can also use
lethal force to preserve other life. If you are out on the street, and you
see a mugging, and the mugger has a gun and tells his victim "I'm going to
kill you", you can justify shooting the mugger through the head. You'll
probably get reamed out in court for not attempting non-lethal means, but
the law is on your side. That and a decent lawyer will get you a walk.

The point here is that lethal force is considered justified even when there
are non-lethal means available, depending on the situation. I personally
know of a situation, and no I won't discuss it in detail as there is no
statue of limitations on this sort of thing, where an elderly woman shot a
burglar as he was crawling in her window. Blew him away. The first cop on
the scene, who told me the story, said he helped the old woman get the body
completely inside the house, so that she could claim self defense and the
incident could be written off. If the report had shown the body hanging out
the window, the self-defense plea wouldn't have worked. The guy had to be
all the way into the house. It also helped that he was carrying a weapon "a
crowbar" and was a lot younger, bigger and in better shape than the old
woman.

--
Andrew W. Ragland, Product Support Manager, R & M BioMetrics / BioQuant
bqtech1@***.pipeline.com *** a.g.CR Charter Member
GoTW!4)Au!3( TM(An) B0/32Bk GR{BR}p+4BM PPrSaG V++s M++p2wD ZGo(NrGnCl)
C+3P2e a33 n*O b-:+D H193 g+* m-3 w++T r++E D-% h+ S* k++* Rm SmNn N0689n1w
LusTN+ HzMc2p4
Message no. 7
From: mbroadwa@*******.glenayre.com (Mike Broadwater)
Subject: Re: High profile guns and magic
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 16:16:51 -0500
>Nobody should have to flee their home
>to preserve their life. Therefore, if someone threatens to kill you, and I
>mean seriously is trying to do it, in your home or office, you can kill
>them without attempting to flee and plead self-defense. You can also use
>lethal force to preserve other life. If you are out on the street, and you
>see a mugging, and the mugger has a gun and tells his victim "I'm going to
>kill you", you can justify shooting the mugger through the head. You'll
>probably get reamed out in court for not attempting non-lethal means, but
>the law is on your side. That and a decent lawyer will get you a walk.

Remember "he needed killing" is still a valid defense in the South :)

Mike Broadwater
http://www.olemiss.edu/~neon
"An object at rest cannot be stopped! YEAH, BABY! YEAH!" - The Evil Midnight
Bomber What Bombs at Midnight.
Message no. 8
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.com.au>
Subject: Re: High profile guns and magic
Date: Fri, 17 May 96 17:48:33 +1030
>Therefore, if someone threatens to kill you, and I
>mean seriously is trying to do it, in your home or office, you can kill
>them without attempting to flee and plead self-defense. You can also use
>lethal force to preserve other life

Yes, but that's because lethal force is currently the only RELIABLE
technique of incapaciting someone available to most people.

A magician who goes for his Mana Bolt spell instead of his Stun Bolt
spell could arguably be applying lethal force without necessity, as he
had an equally effective and accessible form of non-lethal force. That
was my point.

That bit about the old woman and the mugger was a case of a cop using his
or her discretion. It was also illegal, but hey. The woman still broke
the law.


--
Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 9
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: High profile guns and magic
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 11:52:01 +0100
Sascha Pabst said on 15:03/16 May 96...

> >But yeah, if you zap someone with Mana Bolt, it's considered a use of
> >lethal force, which can lead to Murder 1.
>
> I thought I read (I am not sure where, though) that use of harmful
> magic is always considered intended lethal force, and therefore
> murder1. Maybe I am wrong... could someone help me out here?

Yep, you're right. Any use of magic to kill someone with is explained
under UCAS law as a pre-planned attempt to kill that person. It makes no
sense to me, but maybe the lawmakers are magophobes (reality intrusion: or
it's another game balance issue put in by FASA to stop magician characters
from wasting everybody with Mana Bolts just for the hell of it :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Een mens kan zich vergissen, maar dit is toch al te lullig...
-> 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. 10
From: "Sascha Pabst" <Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>
Subject: Re: High profile guns and magic
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 19:31:11 +0200
At 12:52 Uhr 17.05.96, Gurth wrote:
>Yep, you're right. Any use of magic to kill someone with is explained
>under UCAS law as a pre-planned attempt to kill that person. It makes no
>sense to me, but maybe the lawmakers are magophobes (reality intrusion: or
>it's another game balance issue put in by FASA to stop magician characters
>from wasting everybody with Mana Bolts just for the hell of it :)

Hm... I thought it quite convincing. Could you please hint me to the
source (I think LS Sourcebook, but where???), I'll need it for out groups'
next run... *evil GM-to-be grin*

Sascha

--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |The one who does not|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| learn from history |
| \___ __/ | | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | through it again. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 11
From: Tom Pendergrast <pendergr@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: High profile guns and magic
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 11:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
> Yes, but that's because lethal force is currently the only RELIABLE
> technique of incapaciting someone available to most people.
>
> A magician who goes for his Mana Bolt spell instead of his Stun Bolt
> spell could arguably be applying lethal force without necessity, as he
> had an equally effective and accessible form of non-lethal force. That
> was my point.

Not every mage has a StunBolt, or any stun spell for that matter... while
every mage that I've run into has a manabolt or a powerbolt...




---Tom---
Message no. 12
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.com.au>
Subject: Re: High profile guns and magic
Date: Sat, 18 May 96 16:35:56 +1030
>Yep, you're right. Any use of magic to kill someone with is explained
>under UCAS law as a pre-planned attempt to kill that person. It makes no
>sense to me, but maybe the lawmakers are magophobes (reality intrusion: or
>it's another game balance issue put in by FASA to stop magician characters
>from wasting everybody with Mana Bolts just for the hell of it :)

Well, it works like this... If you shoot someone, you _might_ have been
doing something like going for the leg, or whatever. If you use a Mana
Bolt, that means you were trying to Seriously hurt someone (remember, a
Mana Bolt either does a minimum of Serious, or nothing). Not exactly
non-lethal force, especially if you had alternatives.


--
_______________________________________________________________________
/ \
| "As soon as we started programming, we found to our surprise that it |
| wasn't as easy to get programs right as we had thought. Debugging |
| had to be discovered. I can remember the exact instant when I |
| realized that a large part of my life from then on was going to be |
| spent in finding mistakes in my own programs." -- Maurice Wilkes |
| Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au |
\_______________________________________________________________________/
Message no. 13
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.com.au>
Subject: Re: High profile guns and magic
Date: Sat, 18 May 96 19:06:57 +1030
>> A magician who goes for his Mana Bolt spell instead of his Stun Bolt
>> spell could arguably be applying lethal force without necessity, as he
>> had an equally effective and accessible form of non-lethal force. That
>> was my point.
>
>Not every mage has a StunBolt, or any stun spell for that matter... while
>every mage that I've run into has a manabolt or a powerbolt...

Well... IMHO, that mage isn't particularly versitile. However, my point
is still valid... you kill someone with magic, it is considered a
deliberate application of lethal force (which isn't ALWAYS murder 1). If
you had equally effective non-lethal force available, however, you're
looking at a murder rap.


--
_______________________________________________________________________
/ \
| "As soon as we started programming, we found to our surprise that it |
| wasn't as easy to get programs right as we had thought. Debugging |
| had to be discovered. I can remember the exact instant when I |
| realized that a large part of my life from then on was going to be |
| spent in finding mistakes in my own programs." -- Maurice Wilkes |
| Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au |
\_______________________________________________________________________/
Message no. 14
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: High profile guns and magic
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 12:05:11 +0100
Sascha Pabst said on 19:31/17 May 96...

> >Yep, you're right. Any use of magic to kill someone with is explained
> >under UCAS law as a pre-planned attempt to kill that person.
>
> Hm... I thought it quite convincing. Could you please hint me to the
> source (I think LS Sourcebook, but where???), I'll need it for out groups'
> next run... *evil GM-to-be grin*

Lone Star, page 45, just above the Department Of Forensics header: "The
law automatically considers any magical crime a premediated act, and so
death by magical assault becomes first-degree murder."

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I can feel it coming back again.
-> 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. 15
From: Joel Nesbitt <joel.nesbitt@******.oxford.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: High profile guns and magic
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 16:25:03 +0100 (BST)
> doing something like going for the leg, or whatever. If you use a Mana
> Bolt, that means you were trying to Seriously hurt someone (remember, a
> Mana Bolt either does a minimum of Serious, or nothing). Not exactly

Can someone confirm that this is correct? I had thought that if a mage
cast a Mana Bolt at a person and scored, say, three successes in the
success test, that person would then be effectively resisting (Force)D
damage, ie. needing 8 successes to reduce completely, and that light or
medium damage were both perfectly possible.

Joel
Message no. 16
From: TopCat <topcat@******.net>
Subject: Re: High profile guns and magic
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 13:50:16 -0500
At 04:25 PM 5/18/96 +0100, Joel wrote:
>> doing something like going for the leg, or whatever. If you use a Mana
>> Bolt, that means you were trying to Seriously hurt someone (remember, a
>> Mana Bolt either does a minimum of Serious, or nothing). Not exactly

>Can someone confirm that this is correct? I had thought that if a mage
>cast a Mana Bolt at a person and scored, say, three successes in the
>success test, that person would then be effectively resisting (Force)D
>damage, ie. needing 8 successes to reduce completely, and that light or
>medium damage were both perfectly possible.

Look at pg. 129 in SRII under the heading "Casting Spells". If the number
of successes generated by the target in the resisted test exceed the number
of successes that the caster got, then the spell has no effect whatsoever.
There is also no damage resisting after the spell hits, which means a
manabolt with 2 successes over the target will do D damage. So in some
ways, magic is more effective this way, but in others it is less so.

Damaging manipulations are treated as normal ranged combat and are also
explained uner "Casting Spells".

-------------------------------------
"I was thinking of the immortal words
of Socrates, who said: I drank what?"
-- Real Genius
-------------------------------------
TopCat at the bottom...
Message no. 17
From: Ubiquitous <weberm@*******.net>
Subject: Re: High profile guns and magic
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 21:13:06 -0400 (EDT)
At 04:25 PM 5/18/96 +0100, you wrote:

>Can someone confirm that this is correct? I had thought that if a mage
>cast a Mana Bolt at a person and scored, say, three successes in the
>success test, that person would then be effectively resisting (Force)D
>damage, ie. needing 8 successes to reduce completely, and that light or
>medium damage were both perfectly possible.

No, the target need at least 3 (the caster's) successes or takes the D damage.
Message no. 18
From: Ubiquitous <weberm@*******.net>
Subject: Re: High profile guns and magic
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 21:22:20 -0400 (EDT)
At 01:50 PM 5/18/96 -0500, you wrote:

>Damaging manipulations are treated as normal ranged combat and are also
>explained uner "Casting Spells".

As such, does anyone else allow successes to stage down the damage from a DM
spell the same way it is done for other ranged combat?
Message no. 19
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.com.au>
Subject: Re: High profile guns and magic
Date: Sun, 19 May 96 11:13:50 +1030
>>Damaging manipulations are treated as normal ranged combat and are also
>>explained uner "Casting Spells".
>
>As such, does anyone else allow successes to stage down the damage from a DM
>spell the same way it is done for other ranged combat?

That's exactly how it should be... as explained in "Casting Spells", the
resistance test against Damaging Manipulations is, in fact, a damage
resistance test.


--
* *
/_\ "A friend is someone who likes the same TV programs you do" /_\
{~._.~} "Eternal nothingness is fine if you happen {~._.~}
( Y ) to be dressed for it." -- Woody Allen ( Y )
()~*~() Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au ()~*~()
(_)-(_) (_)-(_)
Message no. 20
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.com.au>
Subject: Re: High profile guns and magic
Date: Sun, 19 May 96 11:04:40 +1030
>Can someone confirm that this is correct? I had thought that if a mage
>cast a Mana Bolt at a person and scored, say, three successes in the
>success test, that person would then be effectively resisting (Force)D
>damage, ie. needing 8 successes to reduce completely, and that light or
>medium damage were both perfectly possible.

Well, I'll confirm it (Hey, I said it first, too... :) )
>From the spell resistance section: Spell Caster rolls dice. Defender
rolls dice. If this is a damaging manipulation, this is damage
resistance. If not, then if the spell caster scores net successes, the
spell goes off.

So, if the mage casting Mana Bolt gets 3 successes, then if the target
gets:
0-1 success (2-3 for the caster)... a Deadly. Oops.
2 success (1 for the caster)... a Serious. Damn shame.
3 or more (0 net successes for the caster)... No damage.


--
*************************************************************************
* .--_ # "My opinions may have changed, but not the fact *
* _-0(#)) # that I'm right." -- Old Fortune Saying *
* @__ )/ # *
* )=(===__==,= # Robert Watkins <---> robertdw@*******.com.au *
* {}== \--==--`= # *
* ,_) \ # "A friend is someone who watches the same *
* L_===__)=, # TV programs as you" *
*************************************************************************
Message no. 21
From: "Gurth" <Gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: High profile guns and magic
Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 11:33:13 +0100
Joel Nesbitt said on 16:25/18 May 96...

> > doing something like going for the leg, or whatever. If you use a Mana
> > Bolt, that means you were trying to Seriously hurt someone (remember, a
> > Mana Bolt either does a minimum of Serious, or nothing). Not exactly
>
> Can someone confirm that this is correct? I had thought that if a mage
> cast a Mana Bolt at a person and scored, say, three successes in the
> success test, that person would then be effectively resisting (Force)D
> damage, ie. needing 8 successes to reduce completely, and that light or
> medium damage were both perfectly possible.

The way a combat spell works is as follows:

1) The caster rolls the Force dice, plus any Magic Pool he wants to use
for the spell. Count the successes.
2) The target rolls a Resistance Test against the Force of the spell.
Count the successes.
3) Subtract the target's successes from those of the caster.
3a) If the resulting number is 0 or positive, stage the damage up
accordingly and apply it to the target.
3b) If the resulting number is negative, the target suffers NO damage
at all.

This means, taking your example, that the target must roll at least 4
successes to suffer no damage. If he rolls 0 or 1 successes, he takes
Deadly damage; 2 or 3 successes means Serious damage.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I can feel it coming back again.
-> 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. 22
From: "Gurth" <Gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: High profile guns and magic
Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 11:33:12 +0100
Ubiquitous said on 21:22/18 May 96...

> >Damaging manipulations are treated as normal ranged combat and are also
> >explained uner "Casting Spells".
>
> As such, does anyone else allow successes to stage down the damage from a DM
> spell the same way it is done for other ranged combat?

Yes. That's the way the rules say it's to be done. This is one of the
advantages of DMs -- your target needs more successes to reduce the damage
to nothing than with a comparable Combat spell. The disadvantage is the
higher Drain.

Also your TN is a 4, and not the Body or Willpower of the target, which is
either an advantage of a disadvantage -- in most typical shadowrun
situations, I think it's an advantage :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I can feel it coming back again.
-> 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. 23
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.com.au>
Subject: Re: High profile guns and magic
Date: Sun, 19 May 96 20:57:06 +1030
>This means, taking your example, that the target must roll at least 4
>successes to suffer no damage. If he rolls 0 or 1 successes, he takes
>Deadly damage; 2 or 3 successes means Serious damage.

Oops, yeah... ties go to the spell caster.


--
* *
/_\ "A friend is someone who likes the same TV programs you do" /_\
{~._.~} "Eternal nothingness is fine if you happen {~._.~}
( Y ) to be dressed for it." -- Woody Allen ( Y )
()~*~() Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au ()~*~()
(_)-(_) (_)-(_)
Message no. 24
From: "A Halliwell" <u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: High profile guns and magic
Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 13:20:42 +0100 (BST)
|
|At 04:25 PM 5/18/96 +0100, you wrote:
|
|>Can someone confirm that this is correct? I had thought that if a mage
|>cast a Mana Bolt at a person and scored, say, three successes in the
|>success test, that person would then be effectively resisting (Force)D
|>damage, ie. needing 8 successes to reduce completely, and that light or
|>medium damage were both perfectly possible.
|
|No, the target need at least 3 (the caster's) successes or takes the D damage.

Nope. The target can still stage it down to an S with 2 successes. The extra
success negates the spell.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk | |
|Andrew Halliwell | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
|Principal subjects in:-| "THAT WOULD BE AN ECCLESIASTICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!!|
|Comp Sci & Visual Arts | - Father Jack in "Father Ted"
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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't say F**K either now! >*SULK*<|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about High profile guns and magic, 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!