Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Limited spells (was Re: Turn to goo spell effects)
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:47:47 +0200
According to Sebastian Wiers, at 20:44 on 17 Jun 00, the word on the
street was...

> Good point. That, plus the "slaughter enemies" spell thread, brings an
> idea to mind- how about instead of a spell with a "limited" target
> modisifer, a spell with a "selective" target modifier?

This would be a very useful thing to have, IMO. Woring out how it's
supposed to work may not be that easy, though.

> For combat spells, this would be like having ALL the "slay species"
> spells on tap. For detection spells, you could cast it as "detect (chosen)
> object", or even sustain it and change the object in question as a complex
> action.

IMHO, you'd have to recast it to change the subject of the spell, or at
least resist Drain again when you do. If you allow it to be changed simply
by spending an action, here's what'll happen: Players are searching bad
guy's apartment. Mage casts Detect Guns. Mage spends Karma to get lots of
successes (optional). Mage finds all guns in apartment. Mage changes spell
to Detect Money. Mage finds all money. Mage changes spell to ...

Too easy for them, if you ask me.

> The trick would be, instead of having LOWER drain, the spell would have
> HIGHER drain.

Agreed. This is something that I feel would fall under the Bonus Game
Effect modifier that used to exist in the Grimoire. (Why were these extra
modifiers removed, anyway? They allowed all kinds of useful effects not
covered by the main rules...)

> How much higher would it have to be to make this balanced? I'm thinking
> at least +1 TN and +1 level. Does that sound reasonable, or is this
> just to powerful, since it (almost) makes a class of spells obsolete.

Maybe there would have to be some broad groups (People/Animals, Plants,
Electronics, Vehicles, etc.) from which you can select more specific
targets. You'd learn a Detect (Plants) spell and then be able to cast it
as Detect Oak Tree, Detect Rose Bush, or Detect Grass. This is much more
useful than needing to have all those as separate spells, but not so
powerful that you can detect anything by learning a single spell.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Here come the golden oldies. Here come the Hezbollah.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 2
From: NeoJudas neojudas@******************.com
Subject: Limited spells (was Re: Turn to goo spell effects)
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 05:39:18 -0500
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Limited spells (was Re: Turn to goo spell effects)


> According to Sebastian Wiers, at 20:44 on 17 Jun 00, the word on the
> street was...
>
> > Good point. That, plus the "slaughter enemies" spell thread,
brings
an
> > idea to mind- how about instead of a spell with a "limited" target
> > modisifer, a spell with a "selective" target modifier?
>
> This would be a very useful thing to have, IMO. Woring out how it's
> supposed to work may not be that easy, though.

Nah, if you followed the basic premise for the usage of certain Detect Spell
modifiers, you would in fact probably come up with something quite similar
to what is needed in final structure.

> > For combat spells, this would be like having ALL the "slay
species"
> > spells on tap. For detection spells, you could cast it as "detect
(chosen)
> > object", or even sustain it and change the object in question as a
complex
> > action.
>
> IMHO, you'd have to recast it to change the subject of the spell, or at
> least resist Drain again when you do. If you allow it to be changed simply
> by spending an action, here's what'll happen: Players are searching bad
> guy's apartment. Mage casts Detect Guns. Mage spends Karma to get lots of
> successes (optional). Mage finds all guns in apartment. Mage changes spell
> to Detect Money. Mage finds all money. Mage changes spell to ...
>
> Too easy for them, if you ask me.

And outside the mechanics of the spell as far as I understand them. The
"Detect (Object)" spell for instance. You actually have to learn a "Detect
Firearm Type" "Detect Cyberdeck" "Detect Bug Scanner"
"Detect Special Ares
Prototype-A" etc... ad nauseum. Hence, you'd have to have something
similar. Besides, you also have to break past the mentality of "limiting
the target of the spell" vs. "selectively targetting the effect of the
spell".

Hmm ... I can see where the real problem would come in. The readers (GM or
Players) interpretation.

Selective Target spells would be the modifier applied to an area spell that
would otherwise cause or induce a state of change (damage, transformation,
etc...) to all targets within an area. Limited category spells are those
that are designed to target ONLY a specific, obvious, qualifying target.
For instance;

Mana Ball (Trolls) is a spell that targets a very obvious, "vanilla", target
description and does not select *which troll* would be targetted. Mana Ball
(Enemies) would be a spell that selects it's targets based upon a sense of
opposition to the caster of the spell, which would be determined at the time
of the spell's casting (or release, in the case of anchored spells).

And yes, in theory you could have a Mana Ball (Enemy Trolls), where it will
target only trolls that are the enemies of the caster/originator, but you'd
have both sets of spell modifiers involved as well.

> > The trick would be, instead of having LOWER drain, the spell would
have
> > HIGHER drain.
>
> Agreed. This is something that I feel would fall under the Bonus Game
> Effect modifier that used to exist in the Grimoire. (Why were these extra
> modifiers removed, anyway? They allowed all kinds of useful effects not
> covered by the main rules...)

The reason they were removed was simply because they were too transient. It
was left up to the GM what was what level of "Bonus Game Effect". That also
made it hard for a comparison of effects between FASA canon material and
what a GM might consider what level of effect.

> > How much higher would it have to be to make this balanced? I'm thinking
> > at least +1 TN and +1 level. Does that sound reasonable, or is this
> > just to powerful, since it (almost) makes a class of spells obsolete.
>
> Maybe there would have to be some broad groups (People/Animals, Plants,
> Electronics, Vehicles, etc.) from which you can select more specific
> targets. You'd learn a Detect (Plants) spell and then be able to cast it
> as Detect Oak Tree, Detect Rose Bush, or Detect Grass. This is much more
> useful than needing to have all those as separate spells, but not so
> powerful that you can detect anything by learning a single spell.

Not really sure I see the comparison using these words. Personally, I think
the idea of using the Detection Spell modifiers as far as determining
targets and such would come into play, and at least are written down in the
book now. In this case, I am referring to the usage of the Superficial Mind
Interaction (Detect Enemies), and similar instances.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
J. Keith Henry
Hoosier Hacker House (http://www.hoosierhackerhouse.com/)
Winstar Tech Support and Provisioning (www.winstar.com)
Message no. 3
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Limited spells (was Re: Turn to goo spell effects)
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:48:34 +0200
According to NeoJudas, at 5:39 on 18 Jun 00, the word on the street was...

> > IMHO, you'd have to recast it to change the subject of the spell, or at
> > least resist Drain again when you do. [snip]
>
> And outside the mechanics of the spell as far as I understand them. The
> "Detect (Object)" spell for instance. You actually have to learn a
"Detect
> Firearm Type" "Detect Cyberdeck" "Detect Bug Scanner"
"Detect Special Ares
> Prototype-A" etc... ad nauseum. Hence, you'd have to have something
> similar.

That's why I suggested target types for spells, instead of very specific
targets, and having to select a specific target from that type at the
moment the spell is cast.

> Hmm ... I can see where the real problem would come in. The readers (GM or
> Players) interpretation.

Yep.

[Bonus Game Effect modifiers]
> The reason they were removed was simply because they were too transient. It
> was left up to the GM what was what level of "Bonus Game Effect". That
also
> made it hard for a comparison of effects between FASA canon material and
> what a GM might consider what level of effect.

IOW, they were removed to cater for the lowest common denomintor, instead
of assuming the readers can think for themselves. Great...

> > Maybe there would have to be some broad groups (People/Animals, Plants,
> > Electronics, Vehicles, etc.) from which you can select more specific
> > targets. You'd learn a Detect (Plants) spell and then be able to cast it
> > as Detect Oak Tree, Detect Rose Bush, or Detect Grass. This is much more
> > useful than needing to have all those as separate spells, but not so
> > powerful that you can detect anything by learning a single spell.
>
> Not really sure I see the comparison using these words.

The thing Mongoose and I are trying to do is find a way to allow (in this
case) a certain type of detection spell to be more useful than it is now,
and for that, it looks to me like we need something that isn't in the SR
rules -- namely, the possibility of changing a spell's parameters while
it's being cast (or perhaps while being sustained).

> Personally, I think the idea of using the Detection Spell modifiers as
> far as determining targets and such would come into play, and at least
> are written down in the book now.

IMHO, that's precisely the problem. Using the spell design rules as they
exist in MITS, you just won't be able to build a spell like what's needed
here...

> In this case, I am referring to the usage of the Superficial Mind
> Interaction (Detect Enemies), and similar instances.

Superficial Mind Interaction has gone the same way as Bonus Game Effect :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Here come the golden oldies. Here come the Hezbollah.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 4
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*****.com
Subject: Limited spells (was Re: Turn to goo spell effects)
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:14:02 -0500
> For combat spells, this would be like having ALL the "slay species"
> spells on tap. For detection spells, you could cast it as "detect
(chosen)
> object", or even sustain it and change the object in question as a complex
> action.

>>>IMHO, you'd have to recast it to change the subject of the spell, or at
least resist Drain again when you do. If you allow it to be changed simply
by spending an action, here's what'll happen: Players are searching bad
guy's apartment. Mage casts Detect Guns. Mage spends Karma to get lots of
successes (optional). Mage finds all guns in apartment. Mage changes spell
to Detect Money. Mage finds all money. Mage changes spell to ...
>>>Too easy for them, if you ask me.


Maybe, but look at the "Phantasm" spell. It allows a very similar
thing- cast an ilussion, get lots of successes, and then use a complex
action to change the illusions appearance or location.

> The trick would be, instead of having LOWER drain, the spell would
have
> HIGHER drain.

>>>Maybe there would have to be some broad groups (People/Animals, Plants,
Electronics, Vehicles, etc.) from which you can select more specific
targets. You'd learn a Detect (Plants) spell and then be able to cast it
as Detect Oak Tree, Detect Rose Bush, or Detect Grass. This is much more
useful than needing to have all those as separate spells, but not so
powerful that you can detect anything by learning a single spell.


The way we play detection spells in our game, you could already do that with
Detect Life- more successes would yield more information about the life
forms detected. For combat spells, the added utility is pretty small
(compare a variable vehicle targeting area combat spell to the basic ram
spell with area effect), though I guess a "slay variable metahuman" spell
would be handy.

But yeah, maybe that is a more blanced type that to allow- although I do
think something along the lines of a metamagic technique (maybe one per
spell category) could allow versatile selectable target spells without
unbalancing things unduly. Well, at least that would work in games I've
played, where Intiaties who know multiple metamagic techniques are very
rare.

Mongoose

_____________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Message no. 5
From: Tzeentch tzeentch666@*********.net
Subject: Limited spells (was Re: Turn to goo spell effects)
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:04:40 -0700
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
> That's why I suggested target types for spells, instead of very specific
> targets, and having to select a specific target from that type at the
> moment the spell is cast.

Hmm, well, if you extend the Shadowrun skill system over to the magic system
a bit I don't see why you can't Concentrate and Specialize in specific
aspects of a spells effects (within reason). Why not have Fireball (Affects
Technological Items Only)-6? Detect (whatever) could have Detect Car
concentrations and Detect Car (Metro Sport) specializations. Use standard
defaulting rules and you are set, especially if you REQUIRE a Concentration
for a spell at design.

Of course that is sort of an obvious way to go about it, anyone find any
major problems with it.
Ken
---------------------------
There's a war out there, old friend, a world war. And it's not about who's
got the most bullets, it's about who controls the information. What we see
and hear, how we work, what we think, it's all about the information!
Cosmo, 'Sneakers'
Message no. 6
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Limited spells (was Re: Turn to goo spell effects)
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:50:30 +0200
According to Sebastian Wiers, at 11:14 on 18 Jun 00, the word on the
street was...

> Maybe, but look at the "Phantasm" spell. It allows a very similar
> thing- cast an ilussion, get lots of successes, and then use a complex
> action to change the illusions appearance or location.

That's true, though it's a game balance issue, IMHO. Phantasm and other
illusion spells generally don't have as much impact as detection spells,
not to mention that in many situations a static illusion just isn't
believable. I think detection spells become more powerful than they should
be if you allow them to change the type of thing they're detecting too
easily.

> But yeah, maybe that is a more blanced type that to allow- although I do
> think something along the lines of a metamagic technique (maybe one per
> spell category) could allow versatile selectable target spells without
> unbalancing things unduly. Well, at least that would work in games I've
> played, where Intiaties who know multiple metamagic techniques are very
> rare.

In part, that's also a drawback, as Keith pointed out to me once. If you
make metamagical techniques out of too many things, chances are you'll
never actually see it in use... Making it a metamagical technique would
make more sense in games where initiates are pretty common, rather than in
games that don't have few, if any, initiates at all, IMHO.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Here come the golden oldies. Here come the Hezbollah.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Limited spells (was Re: Turn to goo spell effects), 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!