Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Rick Mc Leod of the Clan Mac Leod <rxm@****.MDA.COM.AU>
Subject:	Magical clarification
Date:	Thu, 11 May 1995 07:08:01 GMT

Message no. 1 I admit I'm new to SR, and I'm hardly a power munchkin, but after
reading through the Magic rules, I'd appreciate it if someone would
verify or point out the holes in my interpretation of the following:

A shaman with a power focus rating 2 is trying to create a
spell lock for Personal Combat Sense. His totem offers +2 dice.
Additional he has learned this spell;
a) requiring a reusable fetish
b) with exclusivity
c) at force 6 during character generation

(The spell lock is created during the game, however.)

Now, if I'm reading this correctly, the effect of the spell
will be dependent on the number of successes generated during
the bonding which in this situation *could* be:

6 dice (spell force)
+2 dice (totem)
+2 dice (fetish)
+2 dice (exclusivity)
+8 dice (magic pool)

And after casting will be subject to drain of

6 (-2 power focus) / 2 = (2 + x)M

where x is constant of 1 or two which I can't remember at the
moment. This will be resisted by his basic attributes having
burned all his pool in the cast for effect. This would
*potentially* add +10d6 to her combat pool if successful.

The drain from this action would be potentially stiff but could
really be worthwhile...especially if Karma can be used to reroll
all the failures once (or twice)

Am I crazy?

Rick

From:	Menard Steve <menars@***.UMONTREAL.CA>
Subject:	Re: Magical clarification
Date:	Thu, 11 May 1995 11:58:01 -0400

Message no. 2 On Thu, 11 May 1995, Rick Mc Leod of the Clan Mac Leod wrote:

> I admit I'm new to SR, and I'm hardly a power munchkin, but after
> reading through the Magic rules, I'd appreciate it if someone would
> verify or point out the holes in my interpretation of the following:
>
> A shaman with a power focus rating 2 is trying to create a
> spell lock for Personal Combat Sense. His totem offers +2 dice.
> Additional he has learned this spell;
> a) requiring a reusable fetish
> b) with exclusivity
> c) at force 6 during character generation
>
> (The spell lock is created during the game, however.)

huh ... spelllocks are not created for a specific spell.

>
> Now, if I'm reading this correctly, the effect of the spell
> will be dependent on the number of successes generated during
> the bonding which in this situation *could* be:
>
> 6 dice (spell force)
> +2 dice (totem)
> +2 dice (fetish)
> +2 dice (exclusivity)
> +8 dice (magic pool)
>
> And after casting will be subject to drain of
>
> 6 (-2 power focus) / 2 = (2 + x)M
>
Where did you read that a power focus reduce the target number for
resisting draing? As far as I know, it does not.

> where x is constant of 1 or two which I can't remember at the
> moment. This will be resisted by his basic attributes having
> burned all his pool in the cast for effect. This would
> *potentially* add +10d6 to her combat pool if successful.
>
> The drain from this action would be potentially stiff but could
> really be worthwhile...especially if Karma can be used to reroll
> all the failures once (or twice)
>

Using karma you re-roll ALL the dice, not just the failures!
> Am I crazy?
>
> Rick
>

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

From:	Matt Hufstetler <gt2778a@*****.GATECH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Magical clarification
Date:	Thu, 11 May 1995 12:13:41 -0400

Message no. 3 Steve Menard writes:
> Using karma you re-roll ALL the dice, not just the failures!

(Getting book out to quote page so there will be as little discrepancy as
possible)

On p.191 it clearly says.
Under the Re-Rolling Failures Section.
1 point of Karma pool will allow a player to re-roll all dice which failed..

Matt 'Comatose Raspberry' Hufstetler
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt2778a
Internet: gt2778a@*****.gatech.edu

From:	Gary Carroll <gary@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magical clarification
Date:	Thu, 11 May 1995 10:16:07 -0700

Message no. 4 >> Rick wrote:
>> A shaman with a power focus rating 2 is trying
>> to create a spell lock for Personal Combat Sense.
>> His totem offers +2 dice.
>> Additional he has learned this spell;
>> a) requiring a reusable fetish
>> b) with exclusivity
>> c) at force 6 during character generation
>>
>> (The spell lock is created during the game, however.)
>
> Menard writes:
> huh ... spelllocks are not created for a specific spell.
>
Gary writes:
Well spelllocks are not made specifically for one spell
but one spell is bound to a generic spelllock.

>>
>> Now, if I'm reading this correctly, the effect of the
>> spell will be dependent on the number of successes
>> generated during the bonding which in this situation
>> *could* be:
>>
>> 6 dice (spell force)
>> +2 dice (totem)
>> +2 dice (fetish)
>> +2 dice (exclusivity)
>> +8 dice (magic pool)
>>
>> And after casting will be subject to drain of
>>
>> 6 (-2 power focus) / 2 = (2 + x)M
>>
> Where did you read that a power focus reduce the
>target number for resisting draing? As far as I know,
>it does not.
>

Correct the power focus does not lower the drain in any way
shape or form - but can be allocated for either casting or drain
just like magic pool - but the way you show it as 8 magic pool
is correct.

>> where x is constant of 1 or two which I can't remember at the
>> moment. This will be resisted by his basic attributes having
>> burned all his pool in the cast for effect. This would
>> *potentially* add +10d6 to her combat pool if successful.
>>
>> The drain from this action would be potentially stiff but
>> could really be worthwhile...especially if Karma can be
>> used to reroll all the failures once (or twice)
>>
>
> Using karma you re-roll ALL the dice, not just the failures!

first of all you can't use your Karma to reroll failures in a
non-combat situation... and because making a spelllock
is so detailed, making one in combat is impossible.

secondly you cannot reroll karma dice more than once for
a given action. - yet some allow you to use group karma
to reroll a second time. (in otherwords: only one use of
a karma pool/action)

>> Am I crazy?
nope...

the only thing I do different is I don't allow a player to start
with a force + bonuses (not including totem) to be higher
than 6.
for example:
2 dice (spell force)
+2 dice (fetish)
+2 dice (exclusivity)
totals 6 dice = highest I allow for starting player
+2 dice (totem)
+8 dice (magic pool)

I also play (different from many I'm sure)
combat spells...
2 dice (spell force)
+2 dice (fetish)
+2 dice (exclusivity)
target # to resist = 6
drain = ((2/2) + x)<L/M/S/D>
but I play very strict on fetishes and casting...

Happy spell-locking
Gary C.

From:	pran r mukherjee <pran@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Magical clarification
Date:	Thu, 11 May 1995 14:05:14 -0400

Message no. 5 On Thu, 11 May 1995, Rick Mc Leod of the Clan Mac Leod wrote:

<<<SNIP>>>
>
> 6 dice (spell force)
> +2 dice (totem)
> +2 dice (fetish)
> +2 dice (exclusivity)
> +8 dice (magic pool)
>
> And after casting will be subject to drain of
>
> 6 (-2 power focus) / 2 = (2 + x)M
>

You are right about the amount of dice (although I would have broken the
magic pool dice into +6 pool dice and +2 power focus dice), but the drain
is wrong. The power focus doesn't reduce the effective force of the
spell for drain, it just allows you to cast higher force spells without
PHYSICAL drain. The drain should be:

(Force/2 + constant)M = (6/2 + constant)M = (3+constant)M

From:	Bob Ooton <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET>
Subject:	Re: Magical clarification
Date:	Thu, 11 May 1995 17:15:21 -0500

Message no. 6 > Using karma you re-roll ALL the dice, not just the failures!

Nope, just the failures. S'what makes karma so powerful. Guess nothing
really does beat experience.

It can also be done as many times as the karma pool exists, but the cost
raises for each re-roll. 1st = 1, 2nd = 2, 3rd = 3, etc...

See page 191 in SRII for full details.

-- Bob Ooton <topcat@******.net>

From:	Bob Ooton <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET>
Subject:	Re: Magical clarification
Date:	Thu, 11 May 1995 17:24:12 -0500

Message no. 7 >A shaman with a power focus rating 2 is trying to create a
>spell lock for Personal Combat Sense. His totem offers +2 dice.
>Additional he has learned this spell;
> a) requiring a reusable fetish
> b) with exclusivity
> c) at force 6 during character generation

OK, here's what I'd do <G>.

1) It needs a reusable fetish. So for every action of the character during
which the lock is active, one "use" of the fetish is taken away.

2) It's exclusive, so when the lock is on he can't cast any other spells.

Now I know that some of the magic-people will get all over me about that,
but there really is no clear ruling on how locks work if the spell is
exclusive and or fetish-requiring. So I use the rules given for the mods,
which is all that anyone can do. What you're facing is munchy and it's
something I'd bet nearly every GM has had to face. People will rule it
differently, but that's how I'd do it.

>Am I crazy?

Only if you let players get away with that kinda stuff like there were no
restrictions whatsoever on the spell. As is said in another RPG... "If it's
not a disadvantage, then you don't get any (bonus) for it." Take those
words to heart...

-- Bob Ooton <topcat@******.net>

From:	Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject:	Re: Magical clarification
Date:	Fri, 12 May 1995 11:41:39 +0200

Message no. 8 > Using karma you re-roll ALL the dice, not just the failures!

Nope just the failures.

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

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

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Magical clarification
Date:	Fri, 12 May 1995 12:06:01 +0200

Message no. 9 >As is said in another RPG... "If it's
>not a disadvantage, then you don't get any (bonus) for it." Take those
>words to heart...

I don't agree. Why should every disadvantage have an advantage tied to it?
Or the other way around? "Game balance" is the obvious answer, but I have
the feeling some things are over-balanced.

Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
What's next?
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)

From:	Bob Ooton <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET>
Subject:	Re: Magical clarification
Date:	Fri, 12 May 1995 16:38:42 -0500

Message no. 10 >>As is said in another RPG... "If it's
>>not a disadvantage, then you don't get any (bonus) for it." Take those
>>words to heart...

>I don't agree. Why should every disadvantage have an advantage tied to it?
>Or the other way around? "Game balance" is the obvious answer, but I have
>the feeling some things are over-balanced.

It appears the meaning got crossed. What I mean by that is if the character
gets some kind of bonus for a disadvantage that really isn't (i.e. exclusive
spell being locked, yet possessing the same qualities as a non-exclusive
lock) then he shouldn't be allowed the advantage. Simple as that. Not all
disadvantages have to come with advantages (see my arguments about most
martial arts rules systems for Srun... I talk plenty on my view of
disadvantages-that-aren't producing insanely powerful advantages). But all
advantages should have some sort of balancing effect. (i.e. cost for really
good ammo... repair and surgery costs for betaware... ordeal penalties for
cheaper initiation, etc.) So I am anything but of the opinion that all
disadvantages should have advantages tied to them. I am however strongly of
the belief that advantages should be levelled in some manner as appropriate
ot the situation.

-- Bob Ooton <topcat@******.net>

From:	Gary Carroll <gary@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magical clarification
Date:	Fri, 12 May 1995 15:27:38 -0700

Message no. 11 >>>As is said in another RPG... "If it's
>>>not a disadvantage, then you don't get any
>>>(bonus) for it." Take those
>>>words to heart...
>
>>I don't agree. Why should every disadvantage
>>have an advantage tied to it? Or the other way
>>around? "Game balance" is the obvious answer,
>>but I have the feeling some things are over-balanced.
>
>Bob Replied:
>It appears the meaning got crossed. What I mean by
>that is if the character gets some kind of bonus for a
>disadvantage that really isn't (i.e. exclusive spell being
>locked, yet possessing the same qualities as a non-exclusive
>lock) then he shouldn't be allowed the advantage.

The disadvantage is that any mage walking by can drop a
HellBlast in his back pocket. *because the current ruling
is that you can't mask a spelllock*

From:	Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Magical clarification
Date:	Sat, 13 May 1995 20:27:55 +1000

Message no. 12 Gary Carroll writes:

> first of all you can't use your Karma to reroll failures in a
> non-combat situation... and because making a spelllock
> is so detailed, making one in combat is impossible.

No and no. There is no limitation on the usage of karma, except that,
depending on how you read it, it is possible to decide that you can only use
it to "save your butt". [Now, how you then define "save your butt" is
another thing entirely.] Making a spell lock is little more detailed than
casting the spell, nowhere does it say extra time or effort (other than the
expenditure of one karma point) is required.

As for the number of dice the caster with a Rating 2 power focus and a +2
dice totem bonus could roll for a level 6, exclusive, expendible fetish
required spell, it would look like this:

6 dice from the Force
2 dice from the exclusivity
2 dice from the expendible fetish
8 dice from the Magic Pool (_At_the_time_of_casting_, the totem modifier dice
are added to the casters Magic Pool, taking it from 8 to 10. However, the
maximum dice which may be added to the casting of any spell from the Magic
Pool dice is equal to the casters Magic Attribute, which in this case is 8
due to the power focus).

However, many GMs do not count the totem dice as Magic Pool dice (as they
are suppsoed to be by the rules), and so would allow an extra 2 dice on top
of the total I gave above. That's a house rule though.

Also, it is a matter of interpretation as to whether a starting character
can have a spell with an _effective_ force greater than 6. Depending on how
you read the rules on page 133 SRII, you can either decide that the maximum
force _after_ modification by restriction modifiers cannot exceed 6, or you
can decide that the maximum force _before_ restriction modifers cannot
exceed 6. In the case of the latter, an effective Force of up to 10 could
be gained, but with the former, the effective force is still a maximum of 6.
This is a GM call, unless anyone out there has a DLoH ruling stored
somewhere?

--
Damion Milliken Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+

From:	P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Magical clarification
Date:	Sat, 13 May 1995 13:50:14 BST

Message no. 13 Gary wrote
> The disadvantage is that any mage walking by can drop a
> HellBlast in his back pocket. *because the current ruling
> is that you can't mask a spelllock*

1. Use a fireball, the drain is easier and it's not too hard
to get two succeses if you can get one.
2. When did they rule you cant mask a spell lock? If you can
mask active foci and stuff, surely a lock can be masked too?

Phil (Runs-With-The-Pack)

From:	Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Magical clarification
Date:	Sun, 14 May 1995 02:18:19 +1000

Message no. 14 Bob Ooton writes:

> 1) It needs a reusable fetish. So for every action of the character during
> which the lock is active, one "use" of the fetish is taken away.

Could you just clarify this? To me it sounds like you're requiring a fetish
to be expended every single action...

> 2) It's exclusive, so when the lock is on he can't cast any other spells.

I won't even bother... <grin>

> >I don't agree. Why should every disadvantage have an advantage tied to it?
> >Or the other way around? "Game balance" is the obvious answer, but I
have
> >the feeling some things are over-balanced.
>
> It appears the meaning got crossed. What I mean by that is if the character
> gets some kind of bonus for a disadvantage that really isn't (i.e. exclusive
> spell being locked, yet possessing the same qualities as a non-exclusive
> lock) then he shouldn't be allowed the advantage. Simple as that.

But that's circumstance dependent. It's like saying "exclusive spells don't
have any draw-backs when you cast them without having other spells
sustained; they get a huge bonus with no disadvantage..." Well of course
they do. Just like when you cast them into a spell lock. The drawback of
exclusive spells is that you can't sustain them at the same time as you
cast/sustain other spells, and you can't use any magical skill while you
sustain them. They have limited applications, but within those applications
they excel. Putting them into spell locks is one of those applications
where they can be used. The drawback of them still exists, it just isn't
applicable in that particular circumstance.

From your reasoning, the magician who learns an exclusive Manabolt, and
casts it when he has no intention of sustaining other spells etc, is getting
"some kind of bonus for a disadvantage that really isn't" (i.e. exclusive
spell being cast, yet possessing the same qualities as a non-exclusive
spell). That makes absolutely no sense at all. The idea of exclusive spells
is to get bonuses when you are casting/sustaining only that spell, so why
should you take this bonus away? Spell locks are nothing more than a
particularily well chosen application of the advantages of an exclusive
spell. The disadvantage is still there, you are just choosing the
circumstance of the casting of the spell to fit the restraints of the
exclusivity.

--
Damion Milliken Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+

From:	Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Magical clarification
Date:	Sat, 13 May 1995 12:50:16 -0400

Message no. 15 On Fri, 12 May 1995, Gary Carroll wrote:

> The disadvantage is that any mage walking by can drop a
> HellBlast in his back pocket. *because the current ruling
> is that you can't mask a spelllock*

Hello! Where did this come from? Under Masking in my copy of
the Grimoire, the masking of foci is dealt with. It also says that all
spells locks have an effective rating of 1 for this purpose regardless of
the level of spell locked on it. That's pretty clear in saying that
locks can be masked.
Perhaps you are thinking of quickenings. No where in the rules
does it mention that quickenings can be masked, but many GM's allow it as
a house rule. I allow force-points of quickenings to be substituted for
ratings points of foci on a one-for-one basis.

Marc

From:	"John W. Carter" <scarterjw@****.TRISTATE.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Magical clarification
Date:	Sat, 13 May 1995 13:23:08 -0500

Message no. 16 >Gary wrote
>> The disadvantage is that any mage walking by can drop a
>> HellBlast in his back pocket. *because the current ruling
>> is that you can't mask a spelllock*
>
>1. Use a fireball, the drain is easier and it's not too hard
> to get two succeses if you can get one.
>2. When did they rule you cant mask a spell lock? If you can
> mask active foci and stuff, surely a lock can be masked too?
>
>Phil (Runs-With-The-Pack)
Um, last time I checked, I thought you could only put sustained spells in a
spell lock. So putting a Hellblast in a spell lock is not only silly, but
impossible.

John Carter
....this sucks... let's break it...

From:	Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Magical clarification
Date:	Sun, 14 May 1995 17:11:52 +1000

Message no. 17 John W. Carter writes:

> Um, last time I checked, I thought you could only put sustained spells in a
> spell lock. So putting a Hellblast in a spell lock is not only silly, but
> impossible.

You're right with the rules, but you misread/interpreted what was said. What
was being said was that the disadvantage of a spell lock was that any
magician who happended to jander by in astral space could dump a Hellblast
spell in the wearers back pocket (through the spell lock), not that the
wearer had a Hellblast spell locked in the spell lock.

--
Damion Milliken Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+

From:	Gary Carroll <gary@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magical clarification
Date:	Mon, 15 May 1995 07:56:11 -0700

Message no. 18 >>Gary wrote
>>> The disadvantage is that any mage walking by can drop a
>>> HellBlast in his back pocket. *because the current ruling
>>> is that you can't mask a spelllock*
>>
>>Phil writes:
>>1. Use a fireball, the drain is easier and it's not too hard
>> to get two succeses if you can get one.
>>2. When did they rule you cant mask a spell lock? If you can
>> mask active foci and stuff, surely a lock can be masked too?
>>
>>Phil (Runs-With-The-Pack)

Well choice of spells wasn't an issue..
Also Hellblast has an incorrect drain - they corrected it
in an ERRATTA - of KAGA - the shadowrun Magazine.

obvoiusly I either missed a couple of messages or...
many of the people replying have....
but the statement - *because the current ruling is that
you can't mask a spelllock* "or quickening"
is from many discussions where it was never decided
(as many never are) - it was left that only Foci and the
Mage himself can be masked. "as per SRII book"

I currently play - you can mask locks and quickenings
and foci and Mage. Mage if free... to mask
foci/locks/quickenings each takes a initiate grade.
If you are a level 2 initiate grade you can mask
you free, and "1 level 2 foci or 2 spelllocks or a level 1 foci
and a spelllock or a quickening (2 karma) or 2 quickenings
(1 karma) etc..."

Thanks
Gary

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer