Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Calvin Hsieh <u2172778@*******.ACSU.UNSW.EDU.AU>
Subject: Magicians
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 22:58:10 +1100
Greetings one and all,

Here is a question:

To the one who mentioned the utility spell locks (sorry, I deleted your
message accidentally), can you expand on that point. What type of force 1
spells do you lock that makes you such a grand magic wielder? (NB: Do not
read sarcasm into the last question)

Also, how popular are locks with increased reflex and initiative spells
with people? I can't see anyway magicians can keep up with Street Sams
who have made 3 movements before non-locked mages get to move, and that's
3 movements too slow.

Shaman
Message no. 2
From: Midn Daniel O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 07:13:33 -0500
>
> To the one who mentioned the utility spell locks (sorry, I deleted your
> message accidentally), can you expand on that point. What type of force 1
> spells do you lock that makes you such a grand magic wielder? (NB: Do not
> read sarcasm into the last question)

Increase reflexes, increase reaction, increase other attributes (I really
like increase will +4, helps alot in casting spells) armor, combat sence.
The first three don't depend on force, and the last two only depend on the
number of successes rolled, so they can be augmented by power foci,
elementals, ritual magic, ect.

Since you are using spell locks instead of quickening or anchoring, any of
the barrier spells are useful, bullet, blast, magic, spirit...ect

Catfall if you are clumsy, improve invisibility if you don;t want to worry
about sustaining a spell

Man, the list in endless....
Message no. 3
From: Guido Hölker <guido@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 13:24:56 +0100
>Also, how popular are locks with increased reflex and initiative spells
>with people? I can't see anyway magicians can keep up with Street Sams
>who have made 3 movements before non-locked mages get to move, and that's
>3 movements too slow.

Very popular.
No, mages can't keep up speedwise else, but they are not supposed to; they
can conjure, toss a spell, travle astrla space and so on, so personally hate
this spell-lock-loaded samurai-mage and tend to send him lots of astral attacks,
(Worst thing I ever had was at an convention: A guy made a mage and spend
nearly all money and ALL force-points to spell locks and magical gimmicks.
He ended up with 4D6+12 INI, Body of 8 or 9, a weapon focus force something
with an permament damagin manipulatioion in it making 10D damage and and and.
He could shoot and fight, but nearly nothing in conjuring, nothing in
Magical theory, only 4 points in sorcery.
Worst of all: He didn't even heave any
corporation-forced-me-into-this-background story but clearly admitted that
he wanted a character as efficient as possible.
It was the only time I intendly killed a PC..
Message no. 4
From: Justin Pinnow <jpinnow@*****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 08:05:53 -0500
Midn Daniel O Fredrikson wrote:
>
> >
> > To the one who mentioned the utility spell locks (sorry, I deleted your
> > message accidentally), can you expand on that point. What type of force 1
> > spells do you lock that makes you such a grand magic wielder? (NB: Do not
> > read sarcasm into the last question)
>
> Increase reflexes, increase reaction, increase other attributes (I really
> like increase will +4, helps alot in casting spells) armor, combat sence.
> The first three don't depend on force, and the last two only depend on the
> number of successes rolled, so they can be augmented by power foci,
> elementals, ritual magic, ect.
>
> Since you are using spell locks instead of quickening or anchoring, any of
> the barrier spells are useful, bullet, blast, magic, spirit...ect
>
> Catfall if you are clumsy, improve invisibility if you don;t want to worry
> about sustaining a spell
>
> Man, the list in endless....

For the more combat oriented mages, I tend to go toward Increase
reflexes, armor, and combat sense...they are nice to have. Also, don't
forget that resist pain is a nice spell to have, because it doesn't wear
off (so to speak) until you take enough damage. So, it's
pseudo-permanent...neat. :)

--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Justin Pinnow
jpinnow@*****.edu
Message no. 5
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 13:33:26 GMT
Calvin Hsieh writes
> Here is a question:
>
> To the one who mentioned the utility spell locks (sorry, I deleted your
> message accidentally), can you expand on that point. What type of force 1
> spells do you lock that makes you such a grand magic wielder? (NB: Do not
> read sarcasm into the last question)
>
The list is rather long.
+4 body (not armour, the +4 att spell gives you 4 dice, need 10
success on armour to get more, and gets fireball target numbers,
toxin resistance etc etc etc as well)
+4 quick, str (for really nasty melee attacks), charisma (for
trashing the shadowbeat music impact system [just don't get caught],
watching all the oppostion fall in love with you, conjouring 'oh my
frag!!!!' sized spirits)
+4 int, perception tests, will power vs manabolts, critter mind
affacting magic.
I rule that +4 will does not help with drain, ie no spells affecting
spells, it gets far too powerful.

Improved invis and levitate person spell locks, the old flying
invisible trick, this makes you immune to so much its just not on! ok
SR has plenty ways around it but unless mundanes have ultrasound
sights they have little answer to this trick, in my experience its
stays on the list of 'do that and hell will decend!' activities.

Combat snese is good.
Detect enemies is a godsend.
'Det enemies goes off - i dive for cover!!!!', the only sensible
reaction and it saves so many holes in your skin.

Non spell lock.
Treat, heal, det magic, clairvoyance (how many goons are there on the
other side of the wall spell, ouch, oh Mr sammie, grenade at xx
please :)' )
antidotes, cure disease, nutrition (never need die of thirst / starve
again :) )
Fashion, ohnest i fit in in this club ohnest!
Makeover, fastest solution to sewer stink on the planet!
Shapechange,

oh the lists nearly endless.

> Also, how popular are locks with increased reflex and initiative spells
> with people?
Very. +3D6 initative is nearly universal, the last few are folks
awaiting the grade to mask it so avoiding connections to the astral
plane.

> I can't see anyway magicians can keep up with Street Sams
> who have made 3 movements before non-locked mages get to move, and that's
> 3 movements too slow.
With +4, quick, int and reac and +3D6, and two stats of 6 you get to
14+4D6, spell magic only thats about the limit.

Sammies seem to be maxing about 23+4D6 using sensible stuff (ie
players given 6million plus newyen and lots of time to hunt through
books, but not using move by wire or cybermancy : 6 million yen, yeah
well they claimed salvage on a 9000 ton ship! still game damage was
supprisingly minimal, only one really took advantage)

Physical adepts are another story
Without using cyber 14+7D6 is easy but stupidly expensive, with cyber
well Tearchdire is dire, 13+9D6 perm, jazz to 14+10D6 is te fastest
i've seen but the limit is over 20+9D6 permanent as we now have
reaction enhancers (the limit however could take 300 karma on
initiation and over 10 million newyen to achive)
Add +4 att spells and maxed cyber and you get another 8.

so mage : 14+4D6 average : 28
sammie : 23+4D6 average : 37 limit may be 1 or 2 more but.
phsad : 20+9D6 average : 51.5 limits probably more like 55 i
haven't worked it out.
maybe 63+ have to check, cannot be
bothered.

if you ban stacking initiative boosts as many do the sammie probably
wins as the physad cannot get anything the sammie can't except +4
locks and mask then, but the karma for the initations get too silly.

>
> Shaman
>

Mark
Message no. 6
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 14:04:04 GMT
> so mage : 14+4D6 average : 28
> sammie : 23+4D6 average : 37 limit may be 1 or 2 more but.
> phsad : 20+9D6 average : 51.5 limits probably more like 55 i
> haven't worked it out.
> maybe 63+ have to check, cannot be
> bothered.

what i forgot, before folks jump to conclusions, typical numbers seen
in actual games are more like averages of 20 to 25 for initative,
some less than that the rare one higher. The record PC rolls
someplace in the high 30's (with wired 3 and good dice) NPC 55 (but
that guy was not used again and 1 vs 6 PC's!, instucted not to kill
em)

> Mark
>
Message no. 7
From: Rick Jones <rick@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:41:25 -0600
Calvin Hsieh wrote:
> Also, how popular are locks with increased reflex and initiative spells
> with people? I can't see anyway magicians can keep up with Street Sams

Both Mages in my group have super-speed locks. One has Armor locked, and
the other has a Personal Barrier and Invisibility.

--
Rick Jones "And what would you like for Christmas, Crow?"
rick@******.com "I wanna decide who lives and who dies!"
"Oh, I don't know..."
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~rickj/ -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Message no. 8
From: "Robert Pendergrast (Tom)" <3011_3@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:00:57 -0700
<snip>

> Also, how popular are locks with increased reflex and initiative spells
> with people? I can't see anyway magicians can keep up with Street Sams
> who have made 3 movements before non-locked mages get to move, and that's
> 3 movements too slow.

Very popular. At the least, +3 reflexes. Every mage that intends to
enter combat, even if they aren't a combat mage, should have +3 refs.


-Tom-
Message no. 9
From: Calvin Hsieh <u2172778@*******.ACSU.UNSW.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 11:54:29 +1100
On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Robert Pendergrast (Tom) wrote:

> <snip>
>
> > Also, how popular are locks with increased reflex and initiative spells
> > with people? I can't see anyway magicians can keep up with Street Sams
> > who have made 3 movements before non-locked mages get to move, and that's
> > 3 movements too slow.
>
> Very popular. At the least, +3 reflexes. Every mage that intends to
> enter combat, even if they aren't a combat mage, should have +3 refs.
>
What is so good about +3 reflexes. I think I would rather get initiative die.

Shaman

>
> -Tom-
>
Message no. 10
From: Tim Cooper <tpcooper@***.CSUPOMONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 00:44:00 -0800
On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Calvin Hsieh wrote:

> To the one who mentioned the utility spell locks (sorry, I deleted your
> message accidentally), can you expand on that point. What type of force 1
> spells do you lock that makes you such a grand magic wielder? (NB: Do not
> read sarcasm into the last question)
>
> Also, how popular are locks with increased reflex and initiative spells
> with people? I can't see anyway magicians can keep up with Street Sams
> who have made 3 movements before non-locked mages get to move, and that's
> 3 movements too slow.
>
> Shaman

To be honest just about all of the magic-users I've created ended up at
one point or another with a locked force-1 increased reflexes +2
spell..just too darn usefull. Especially after the time that my Fire
Adept sat on the couch and got to watch the apartment get raided and a
whole battle unfold in front of him because he rolled a lousey 8 on
initiative. 1/2 the team went down, the suit we were guarding got nabbed,
3 walls and 2 doors were blown through, and a parade of people entered and
left the room...all while Samhain sat there staring stupidly from across
the room (oh yeah, one burst stiched across the couch and blew stuffing
all over him..). Ended up having to use the troll as a body shield and
only escaped by Ram touching the floor and (thanks to the added weight of
my troll buddy) falling through 2 more ceilings. Ever since every magic
user has at least Reaction +3d6 initiative.

~Tim
Message no. 11
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 12:06:30 +0100
Calvin Hsieh said on 11:54/11 Dec 96...

> What is so good about +3 reflexes. I think I would rather get initiative die.

I think they mean the spell that gives +3D6 initiative. Spell-lock it and
see your magician fly :) (I'm speaking from experience here, having GMed
for a shaman with initiative 3+4D6 for years.)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Oh wow! Oh wow! This is really, really heavy, man!
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.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. 12
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 11:42:35 +0000
|
|On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Robert Pendergrast (Tom) wrote:
|
|> <snip>
|>
|> > Also, how popular are locks with increased reflex and initiative spells
|> > with people? I can't see anyway magicians can keep up with Street Sams
|> > who have made 3 movements before non-locked mages get to move, and that's
|> > 3 movements too slow.
|>
|> Very popular. At the least, +3 reflexes. Every mage that intends to
|> enter combat, even if they aren't a combat mage, should have +3 refs.
|>
|What is so good about +3 reflexes. I think I would rather get initiative die.

Sigh.....
That IS what +3 reflexes gets you!
3 Extra die.

If you were talking +3 REACTION, then it's just be +3.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| |
|Andrew Halliwell | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
|Principal subjects in:- | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | - Father Jack in "Father Ted"
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ 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*<|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 13
From: Steve Collins <steve_collins@********.ALEWIFE.KODAK.COM>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 08:18:25 U
RE>>Magicians 12/11/1996

>> (snip question about popularity of force 1 spell locks and Increased
Reaction Spells)

>To be honest just about all of the magic-users I've created ended >up at one
point or another with a locked force-1 increased >reflexes +2 spell..just too
darn usefull.
> (snip personal story regarding why this lock is necessary)

> ~Tim


I find this to be a problem in my games. If all the PC mages are going to be
doing this then it is necessary for all the NPC mages have to do this or else
they're toast. This makes it too easy for the PC's to accumulate huge sums of
cash by stripping the spell locks off their fallen victims and selling them.
Also in my game not every Samuri Type is running around with 15+3d6 or better
init. Most of them are in the range of 8 - 10+2d6 (avg 15-17). This makes the
standard Corp security guard/cop have and avg init of 6+1d6 (avg 9-10) and
SWAT teams and special ops groups are around 10+2d6 (avg 17). When the mages
start regularly going at 4+4d6 (avg 18) the street sams become little more
than Glorified bullet barriers for the mages. The fix I use for this problem
is a bit Kludgy I admit but it seems to work. In order to spell lock certain
spells the target # is higher than a normal casting would be. For example
Locking Inc. Ref. +3 would have a target # of 15 Inc. Ref +2 would be 10 and
+1 would be 6. If you want to lock them that's fine with me but don't expect
to pay 2 force points at Character creation and be able to have them. On
another note has anyone had a character lock a treat spell. The way I see it
is that it would be a 1 shot the lock sustains the spell until the target is
healed and then the spell is used up so it becomes unbonded. This is abit
expensive on the karma but it sure beats having to sustain the thing for up
to 20 rounds in a combat situation or dragging an unconscious character
around until you can find a reasonably safr place to cast the treat.
Message no. 14
From: Justin Pinnow <jpinnow@*****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 08:39:32 -0500
Steve Collins wrote:

<Snip>

> I find this to be a problem in my games. If all the PC mages are going to be
> doing this then it is necessary for all the NPC mages have to do this or else
> they're toast. This makes it too easy for the PC's to accumulate huge sums of
> cash by stripping the spell locks off their fallen victims and selling them.
> Also in my game not every Samuri Type is running around with 15+3d6 or better
> init. Most of them are in the range of 8 - 10+2d6 (avg 15-17). This makes the
> standard Corp security guard/cop have and avg init of 6+1d6 (avg 9-10) and
> SWAT teams and special ops groups are around 10+2d6 (avg 17). When the mages
> start regularly going at 4+4d6 (avg 18) the street sams become little more
> than Glorified bullet barriers for the mages. The fix I use for this problem
> is a bit Kludgy I admit but it seems to work. In order to spell lock certain
> spells the target # is higher than a normal casting would be. For example
> Locking Inc. Ref. +3 would have a target # of 15 Inc. Ref +2 would be 10 and
> +1 would be 6. If you want to lock them that's fine with me but don't expect
> to pay 2 force points at Character creation and be able to have them. On
> another note has anyone had a character lock a treat spell. The way I see it
> is that it would be a 1 shot the lock sustains the spell until the target is
> healed and then the spell is used up so it becomes unbonded. This is abit
> expensive on the karma but it sure beats having to sustain the thing for up
> to 20 rounds in a combat situation or dragging an unconscious character
> around until you can find a reasonably safr place to cast the treat.

As a GM you have many oppoortunities to use surprise to your advantage
against a party...this enables you to have the NPC's attack prior to
mages turning their spell locks on (especially if the party mage(s) have
low reactions..which is common, seing as willpower and charisma tend to
be the highest ranking on the priority lists for mages). This is just
one example of what can be done to get around a party's advantages with
NPC's. Creative planning on the GM's part can make most anything the
party has useless for a time.

As far as your house rules are concerned, I have a question and some
comments. First, why do you state that a player shouldn't expect to pay
only 2 karma points and then be able to bond a spell lock of inc
reflexes +2 or +3? According to the rules, it only takes ONE karma
point to bond ANY spell lock...regardless of the spell contained within
it. I can understand your increased TN's for locking certain spells
(not that I agree with them), but I don't understand the additional
karma cost (and why you refer to 2 karma points being needed normally).

Also, as far as the heal and treat spells are concerned, I would rule
that the target of the spell be defined when cast into the lock....thus,
it would most likely only heal the mage wearing the lock. Second, I
would treat the lock as I do barriers that are locked...if you turn the
lock off and back on again, the spell is activated again....thus,
barriers are at full strength and heal/treat spells are cast again. As
for whether the successes for the spell casting remain constant every
time the lock is used, I rule this as a "yes".

Just my opinions. :)

Justin
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Justin Pinnow
jpinnow@*****.edu
Message no. 15
From: The Digital Mage <mn3rge@****.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 15:59:08 +0000
On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Calvin Hsieh wrote:

> What is so good about +3 reflexes. I think I would rather get initiative die.
Er, +3 Reflexes IS extra initiative dice, I believe you're thinking of +3
Reaction.

The Digital Mage : mn3rge@****.ac.uk
"So that which I imagine, is that which I believe" -Rush
Shadowrun Web Site http://www.bath.ac.uk/~mn3rge/Shadowrun.html
Message no. 16
From: "Robert Pendergrast (Tom)" <3011_3@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 09:24:36 -0700
> > > Also, how popular are locks with increased reflex and initiative spells
> > > with people? I can't see anyway magicians can keep up with Street Sams
> > > who have made 3 movements before non-locked mages get to move, and that's
> > > 3 movements too slow.
> >
> > Very popular. At the least, +3 reflexes. Every mage that intends to
> > enter combat, even if they aren't a combat mage, should have +3 refs.
> >
> What is so good about +3 reflexes. I think I would rather get initiative die.
> Shaman

That *IS* +3 initiative dice...

> > -Tom-
Message no. 17
From: "Robert Pendergrast (Tom)" <3011_3@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 10:00:57 -0700
<snip, locked treat>

> Also, as far as the heal and treat spells are concerned, I would rule
> that the target of the spell be defined when cast into the lock....thus,
> it would most likely only heal the mage wearing the lock. Second, I
> would treat the lock as I do barriers that are locked...if you turn the
> lock off and back on again, the spell is activated again....thus,
> barriers are at full strength and heal/treat spells are cast again. As
> for whether the successes for the spell casting remain constant every
> time the lock is used, I rule this as a "yes".

Minor question. To lock a spell, it has to be a SUSTAINED spell, right?
Isn't treat a *permanent* spell? (permanent being sustained for a bit
tho). Treat (and the like) aren't spells that you can just 'cast'... you
have to have a target, make the roll, and its done. As I see it, since
it isn't a sustained spell, it couldn't be locked... (although it could
be anchored... ooh) By allowing a treat spell to be locked, you are
setting a precedent that would allow treat spell to be anchored as if
they were sustained spells, and therefore used a hell of a lot of times
without being recast...

(IMO of course)

-Tom-
Message no. 18
From: The Digital Mage <mn3rge@****.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 16:00:41 +0000
On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Tim Cooper wrote:

> whole battle unfold in front of him because he rolled a lousey 8 on
> initiative. 1/2 the team went down, the suit we were guarding got nabbed,
A lousy 8?! You'd obviously like it in my game, 8 is pretty okay!

The Digital Mage : mn3rge@****.ac.uk
"So that which I imagine, is that which I believe" -Rush
Shadowrun Web Site http://www.bath.ac.uk/~mn3rge/Shadowrun.html
Message no. 19
From: The Digital Mage <mn3rge@****.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 15:58:08 +0000
On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Robert Pendergrast (Tom) wrote:

> > Also, how popular are locks with increased reflex and initiative spells
> > with people? I can't see anyway magicians can keep up with Street Sams
> > who have made 3 movements before non-locked mages get to move, and that's
> > 3 movements too slow.
>
> Very popular. At the least, +3 reflexes. Every mage that intends to
> enter combat, even if they aren't a combat mage, should have +3 refs.
My gang leader mage casts this on himself in combat but he sustains it. He
doesn't mind teh +2 TN as the first thing he does is just move into cover
(no test) which is best to do before others act. Then he drops teh
reflexes spell and snipes at them.

If he knows he's going into combat he uses ritual sorcery to sustain it
for a few hours -so he doesn't have teh +2 TNs but neither can it be
grounded through :)

My combat sorcerer though has boosted reflexes 1 :)

The Digital Mage : mn3rge@****.ac.uk
"So that which I imagine, is that which I believe" -Rush
Shadowrun Web Site http://www.bath.ac.uk/~mn3rge/Shadowrun.html
Message no. 20
From: Caric <caric@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 12:06:54 -0700
<snip, locked treat>
>
> > Also, as far as the heal and treat spells are concerned, I would rule
> > that the target of the spell be defined when cast into the
lock....thus,
> > it would most likely only heal the mage wearing the lock. Second, I
> > would treat the lock as I do barriers that are locked...if you turn the
> > lock off and back on again, the spell is activated again....thus,
> > barriers are at full strength and heal/treat spells are cast again. As
> > for whether the successes for the spell casting remain constant every
> > time the lock is used, I rule this as a "yes".
>
> Minor question. To lock a spell, it has to be a SUSTAINED spell, right?
> Isn't treat a *permanent* spell? (permanent being sustained for a bit
> tho). Treat (and the like) aren't spells that you can just 'cast'... you
> have to have a target, make the roll, and its done. As I see it, since
> it isn't a sustained spell, it couldn't be locked... (although it could
> be anchored... ooh) By allowing a treat spell to be locked, you are
> setting a precedent that would allow treat spell to be anchored as if
> they were sustained spells, and therefore used a hell of a lot of times
> without being recast...
>
> (IMO of course)
>
> -Tom-

I agree this is the way that I have always understood it as well. IMHO it
is unbalancing to allow someone to lock treat or heal. Magical healing is
powerful enough as it is without making it pretty much free for anyone who
has a karma point. Seems to strong to me.


Caric
Message no. 21
From: Steve Collins <steve_collins@********.ALEWIFE.KODAK.COM>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 15:16:07 U
RE>>Magicians 12/11/1996



--------------------------------------
Date: 12/11/1996 02:37 PM
To: Steve Collins
From: Shadowrun Discussion
>> Minor question. To lock a spell, it has to be a SUSTAINED >>spell, right?
Isn't treat a *permanent* spell? (permanent being >>sustained for a bit
tho). Treat (and the like) aren't spells >>that you can just 'cast'... you
have to have a target, make the >>roll, and its done. As I see it, since it
isn't a sustained >>spell, it couldn't be locked... (although it could be
anchored >>... ooh) By allowing a treat spell to be locked, you are
>>setting a precedent that would allow treat spell to be anchored >>as if
they were sustained spells, and therefore used a hell of a >>lot of times
without being recast...
>>
>> (IMO of course)
>>
>> -Tom-
>
>I agree this is the way that I have always understood it as well. >IMHO it
is unbalancing to allow someone to lock treat or heal. >Magical healing is
powerful enough as it is without making it >pretty much free for anyone who
has a karma point. Seems to >strong to me.
>
>
>Caric


I don't remember any rule saying that a spell had to be sustained to be
locked. It's been a long time since I've seen my rule book (I've got to find
out which player has it because it's been missing for about 4 months now),
but I have a vague memory of a reference in the main rulebook to being able
to lock combat spells. I think the rule went like this. The target of the
spell when activated is the bearer of the lock. The mage casts the spell into
the lock as normal and notes his rolls. When the lock is activated the bearer
suffers the effects of that spell using the numbers the casting mage
generated when he bonded the lock. Now since the duration of the spell is
instant there is nothing for the lock to sustain and it becomes unbonded ie.
the spells energies are entirely used up in it's activation. This is the way
I treat locked healing spells.They're 1 shots, you spend a karma to bond it
use it once and then have to rebond it. This takes away the Munchkinism of
locking heal spells because no mage is going to be willing to let some
cybergoon who doesn't have the sense to duck when somebody shoots at him suck
up his karma but he has it available for emergencies.
Message no. 22
From: Caric <caric@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 13:32:31 -0700
----------
> From: Steve Collins <steve_collins@********.ALEWIFE.KODAK.COM>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: Magicians
> Date: Wednesday, December 11, 1996 8:16 AM
>
> RE>>Magicians
12/11/1996
>
>
> I don't remember any rule saying that a spell had to be sustained to be
> locked. It's been a long time since I've seen my rule book (I've got to
find
> out which player has it because it's been missing for about 4 months
now),
> but I have a vague memory of a reference in the main rulebook to being
able
> to lock combat spells. I think the rule went like this. The target of the
> spell when activated is the bearer of the lock. The mage casts the spell
into
> the lock as normal and notes his rolls. When the lock is activated the
bearer
> suffers the effects of that spell using the numbers the casting mage
> generated when he bonded the lock. Now since the duration of the spell is
> instant there is nothing for the lock to sustain and it becomes unbonded
ie.
> the spells energies are entirely used up in it's activation. This is the
way
> I treat locked healing spells.They're 1 shots, you spend a karma to bond
it
> use it once and then have to rebond it. This takes away the Munchkinism
of
> locking heal spells because no mage is going to be willing to let some
> cybergoon who doesn't have the sense to duck when somebody shoots at him
suck
> up his karma but he has it available for emergencies.

As long as you are making them one shot deals then I would probably allow
it, but we have always determined that whomever the lock is bonded to
controls the turning or it on and off. So even thought the mahe cast the
spell into the lock and bound it to his sammie chummer, the sammie would
toggle the lock on and off.

Caric
Message no. 23
From: Justin Pinnow <jpinnow@*****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 15:51:14 -0500
Caric wrote:

<Snippity snip snip>

> As long as you are making them one shot deals then I would probably allow
> it, but we have always determined that whomever the lock is bonded to
> controls the turning or it on and off. So even thought the mahe cast the
> spell into the lock and bound it to his sammie chummer, the sammie would
> toggle the lock on and off.

<Snip>

As far as one-shot deals go, I would rule that they should be anchored.
Spell locks seem to be designed for storing spells that are turned on
and off at the will of the mage wearing them. I just don't see spell
locks being used as one shot deals effectively with spell locks...locks
should be reusable. If you don't want the heal spells to be locked and
used repeatedly (which I don't see why not...more below) then make the
characters have the spell anchored for a one shot deal.

Also, I hope you are aware that the canon rules about spell locks state
that any mage can turn spell locks on and off...once placed by a mage,
the locks become unsubstial in the physical plane....thus not able to be
affected by anyone without astral perception. Of course, house rulings
are always allowed, but I feel that if anyone can turn spell locks on
and off it takes away from the mystique of magic.

As far as the abused use of heal spell locks....I don't see why you
can't allow them to be reused like any other sustained (heal is
sustained to become permanent...still fits the sustained requirement for
spell locks, IMO) spell would be once locked. I mean, you can get a
couple of extra actions every combat round with increased reflexes +3,
in which you can shoot that gun 4 more times, cast a couple more mana
bolts, what have you. I don't see how healing someone is any more
powerful than being able to kill someone. Besides, healing is pretty
difficult in 2ed rules....at least it's not first edition healing. :)

Justin :)
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Justin Pinnow
jpinnow@*****.edu
Message no. 24
From: Justin Pinnow <jpinnow@*****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 16:25:15 -0500
Caric wrote:

> <snipola>

> >but I feel that if anyone can turn spell locks on
> > and off it takes away from the mystique of magic.

> I can see that and concur

> > As far as the abused use of heal spell locks....I don't see why you
> > can't allow them to be reused like any other sustained (heal is
> > sustained to become permanent...still fits the sustained requirement for
> > spell locks, IMO) spell would be once locked. I mean, you can get a
> > couple of extra actions every combat round with increased reflexes +3,
> > in which you can shoot that gun 4 more times, cast a couple more mana
> > bolts, what have you.

> Granted, but that is also allowing for the mage to keep up with the Jonses.
> If everyone else has 4d6 initiative dice than this is not really
> unbalancing.

True.

> I don't see how healing someone is any more
> > powerful than being able to kill someone. Besides, healing is pretty
> > difficult in 2ed rules....at least it's not first edition healing. :)

> Agreed it is definately more difficult, but if you get a mage who has a
> cybered buddy with an essence of .05 or so the sammie is probably hard to
> kill already due to cyberware. If the mage roles up ten successes on a
> casting of heal, or treat (hey why worry about drain since you aren't going
> anywhere for awhile anyway) and then locks it to the sammie then voila the
> sammie has to be killed twice in any givin fire/magic fight. The mage is
> not worrying about having to get astronomical target numbers while trying
> to save his hoop and taking drain in the middle of combat. That seems like
> a huge advantage to me.

<Snip>

Okay, now I have some more words of wisdom for you ;) If the sammie
has that low of an essence, the mage will have to succeed in casting a
heal spell at TN 10! (9 if you round in favor of the mage, can't
remember) That's a pretty hefty TN...good luck getting more than one or
two successes at that....only a couple of boxes healed...hell, with
enough overflow damage, the sammie may still be beyond deadly damage...

Also, my second point...since the locked spell would have to be
sustained for the same length of time as the normal heal spell, your
sammie would have to have the lock turned on for 20 combat turns in
order to have any chance of healing a deadly wound, etc. Keep in mind
that heal spells are rarely cast successfully during combat. Why?
Because they have to be sustained longer than most combats take! Thus,
your combat monster would only be as deadly in combat as before, and he
would be healed the same way as usual when being healed by the party
mage, but the mage doesn't have to actually cast the spell...not that
much of an advantage over other locked spells.

One other note. Since locked spells have to have some things pre-set
(so to speak), it would make perfect sense that a spell lock containing
a heal spell be set as a particular type of heal spell (Light, moderate,
serious, or deadly wound level). If the would level it is set at is too
low for the damage that has been taken, turning the lock on has no
effect. If they lock the deadly version, you are looking at 20 combat
turns before the spell takes effect....that's not going to happen in
combat.

Justin :)
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Justin Pinnow
jpinnow@*****.edu
Message no. 25
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 23:19:00 +0000
|Minor question. To lock a spell, it has to be a SUSTAINED spell, right?
|Isn't treat a *permanent* spell? (permanent being sustained for a bit
|tho). Treat (and the like) aren't spells that you can just 'cast'... you
|have to have a target, make the roll, and its done. As I see it, since
|it isn't a sustained spell, it couldn't be locked... (although it could
|be anchored... ooh) By allowing a treat spell to be locked, you are
|setting a precedent that would allow treat spell to be anchored as if
|they were sustained spells, and therefore used a hell of a lot of times
|without being recast...

But treat and heal don't work like that....
If you locked a PERMANENT spell, all it'd do would remove the need for you
to sustain it for the 30 seconds (or whatever) required.

After that, the spell would be finished, the lock wouldn't have anything to
hold onto, and thus, the bond would break...

Bit of a waste of Karma if you ask me....
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| |
|Andrew Halliwell | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
|Principal subjects in:- | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | - Father Jack in "Father Ted"
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ 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*<|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 26
From: Calvin Hsieh <u2172778@*******.ACSU.UNSW.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 10:26:03 +1100
On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Robert Pendergrast (Tom) wrote:

> > > > Also, how popular are locks with increased reflex and initiative
spells
> > > > with people? I can't see anyway magicians can keep up with Street Sams
> > > > who have made 3 movements before non-locked mages get to move, and
that's
> > > > 3 movements too slow.
> > >
> > > Very popular. At the least, +3 reflexes. Every mage that intends to
> > > enter combat, even if they aren't a combat mage, should have +3 refs.
> > >
> > What is so good about +3 reflexes. I think I would rather get initiative die.
> > Shaman
>
> That *IS* +3 initiative dice...
>
> > > -Tom-
>
Woops, sorry - I was in nana land. Got my reflexes and reaction mixed up.

Shaman
Message no. 27
From: "Arno R. Lehmann" <arlehma@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 04:15:08 +0100
On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 08:39:32 -0500, Justin Pinnow wrote:

>Also, as far as the heal and treat spells are concerned, I would rule
>that the target of the spell be defined when cast into the lock....thus,
>it would most likely only heal the mage wearing the lock.

Should be the case with all spells to be sustained. And then - someone already
wrote this idea - the damage level to be healed should also be pre-defined.
Then you get to have a spell lock "heal myself m-damage", "heal Big
Al-the-troll d-damage" and so on.
This fits fine into the way i understand spells, and makes locking of healing
spells much less useful.

Arno
Message no. 28
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:18:02 EST
On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 15:58:08 +0000 The Digital Mage <mn3rge@****.AC.UK>
writes:
>On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Robert Pendergrast (Tom) wrote:
>
>> > Also, how popular are locks with increased reflex and initiative
>spells
>> > with people? I can't see anyway magicians can keep up with Street
>Sams
>> > who have made 3 movements before non-locked mages get to move, and
>that's
>> > 3 movements too slow.
>>
>> Very popular. At the least, +3 reflexes. Every mage that intends
>to
>> enter combat, even if they aren't a combat mage, should have +3
>refs.
>My gang leader mage casts this on himself in combat but he sustains
>it. He
>doesn't mind teh +2 TN as the first thing he does is just move into
>cover
>(no test) which is best to do before others act. Then he drops teh
>reflexes spell and snipes at them.
>
>If he knows he's going into combat he uses ritual sorcery to sustain
>it
>for a few hours -so he doesn't have teh +2 TNs but neither can it be
>grounded through :)
>
Wow. You can do that? Where is the info?

John Pederson "God is dead"
lobo1@****.com -Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 to
1900)
I don't know where my home page is! "Nietzsche is dead"
Only dead fish swim with the stream -God (everlasting to everlasting)
Message no. 29
From: Tim Cooper <tpcooper@***.CSUPOMONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 21:49:25 -0800
On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, The Digital Mage wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Tim Cooper wrote:
>
> > whole battle unfold in front of him because he rolled a lousey 8 on
> > initiative. 1/2 the team went down, the suit we were guarding got nabbed,

> A lousy 8?! You'd obviously like it in my game, 8 is pretty okay!
>
> The Digital Mage : mn3rge@****.ac.uk

This was when the rest of the group were for all intents and purposes
Street Sams with wired reflexes, so naturally in good GM fashion the
strike team was comparable..hell the leader-guy was some huge (and I do
emphasize HUGE, as he barely fit through the door), troll sized human who
turned out to be a shapechanger.... it was a really tweaked version of
Queen Euphoria (I think..).

Its a hilarious story though..

~Tim
Message no. 30
From: Czar Eggbert <czregbrt@*********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 00:56:28 -0600
OK Quick Question: Can you lock, quicken, ect., a Controle Actions spell?

Czar Eggbert
-"I know who I am and who I could be if I want to..."
Don Quixoti
Message no. 31
From: Silvio Sampietro <cyric@*****.NETSURF.DE>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 15:02:00 MET
At 15:58 11.12.1996 +0000, The Digital Mage wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Robert Pendergrast (Tom) wrote:

>If he knows he's going into combat he uses ritual sorcery to sustain it
>for a few hours -so he doesn't have teh +2 TNs but neither can it be
>grounded through :)

Uhhhh how does he do that trick? I´m kinda extremely interested in this.
Hope I get an answer b4 tomorrow when my next run will start. *grin*
Message no. 32
From: Justin Pinnow <jpinnow@*****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 08:06:06 -0500
Sanction wrote:

> > If they lock the deadly version, you are looking at 20 combat
> >turns before the spell takes effect....that's not going to happen in
> >combat.

> I believe, and I may be wrong, that the treat/heal spells (and actually all
> permanent spells) take effect immediately. That means, in the phase that
> the spell is cast, the damage is healed. However, the spell must be
> sustained for the time set (20 turns for Deadly damage, or whatever)
> otherwise the effect is not made permanent, ie the damage returns. So, the
> locked treat (why would you use heal, the whole point is to use in combat
> right after the wound is sustained, not an hour later) would then be a big
> advantage because the damage would be repaired on the next simple after the
> wound is taken, and no one has to waste concentration for 20 turns
> sustaining the spell in order to make the healing permanent.

<Snip of signature>

[This post was originally sent to my personal mailbox by mistake instead
of the list.]

I really don't think that's how permanent spells work. I guess I will
have to check again, but I thought that nothing happened until the time
had passed. Thus, heal and treat aren't combat spells. Hell, ANY spell
that takes up to 20 combat turns to enact isn't a combat spell. ;)
Which is why a spell lock with heal in it wouldn't be a big advantage,
according to my view of how the spell works. Your turn the lock on,
then 20 combat turns later, up to a deadly wound is healed. Then you
turn the lock off and save it for another use later, etc.

Justin
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Justin Pinnow
jpinnow@*****.edu
Message no. 33
From: Justin Pinnow <jpinnow@*****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 08:13:36 -0500
[This message was accidentally sent to my personal mailbox instead of
the list.]

Caric wrote:

> > Okay, now I have some more words of wisdom for you ;) If the sammie
> > has that low of an essence, the mage will have to succeed in casting a
> > heal spell at TN 10! (9 if you round in favor of the mage, can't
> > remember) That's a pretty hefty TN...good luck getting more than one or
> > two successes at that....only a couple of boxes healed...hell, with
> > enough overflow damage, the sammie may still be beyond deadly damage...

> Unless of course the mage can center to lower target numbers and has access
> to any karma pool which would allow him to re-roll dice that were not
> successes.

True, but I don't see you getting 10 successes (as would be required for
the situation mentioned in a previous post) even with centering and
karma pool available...unless you have a large centering skill and/or a
large karma pool. If that's the case, it's not just the Heal spell that
you are really good at, is it? Thus the point becomes moot. :)

> > Also, my second point...since the locked spell would have to be
> > sustained for the same length of time as the normal heal spell, your
> > sammie would have to have the lock turned on for 20 combat turns in
> > order to have any chance of healing a deadly wound, etc. Keep in mind
> > that heal spells are rarely cast successfully during combat. Why?
> > Because they have to be sustained longer than most combats take! Thus,
> > your combat monster would only be as deadly in combat as before, and he
> > would be healed the same way as usual when being healed by the party
> > mage, but the mage doesn't have to actually cast the spell...not that
> > much of an advantage over other locked spells.

> Well this is true as long as in your game the healing does not take effect
> until the full duration is sustained. We have been playing since the
> second edition rules came out that the spell takes effect instantly, but is
> not permanent until the required time has passed, so if the mage goes
> unconscious or the spell is defeated astrally before permanent the damage
> comes back. If you do not play this way (that may be a rule we made up i'm
> really not sure) then you have a valid point.

I could be wrong, but I have always thought that permanent spells must
be sustained for the required amount of time before becoming effective.

> > One other note. Since locked spells have to have some things pre-set
> > (so to speak), it would make perfect sense that a spell lock containing
> > a heal spell be set as a particular type of heal spell (Light, moderate,
> > serious, or deadly wound level). If the would level it is set at is too
> > low for the damage that has been taken, turning the lock on has no
> > effect. If they lock the deadly version, you are looking at 20 combat
> > turns before the spell takes effect....that's not going to happen in
> > combat.

> Ok I can see where this would help, but does that mean that you are
> predetermining what wound level you are healing? Sort of like using heal
> from first edition?

Doh! I believe I got my wires crossed on this one. That is first
edition rules. Just ignore that part. ;)

> Caric

Justin :)
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Justin Pinnow
jpinnow@*****.edu
Message no. 34
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 13:12:22 +0000
|>If he knows he's going into combat he uses ritual sorcery to sustain it
|>for a few hours -so he doesn't have teh +2 TNs but neither can it be
|>grounded through :)
|>
|Wow. You can do that? Where is the info?

It's in the main book under ritual sorcery....
You can donate successes (in a similar way you do when restricting or
expanding an area effect), and each success donated is worth one hour of self
sustaining....

--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ 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*<|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 35
From: Justin Pinnow <jpinnow@*****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 08:39:13 -0500
Czar Eggbert wrote:
>
> OK Quick Question: Can you lock, quicken, ect., a Controle Actions spell?
>
> Czar Eggbert
> -"I know who I am and who I could be if I want to..."
> Don Quixoti

I would say no. Why? Because control actions is a variable spell...you
have to have a mind behind it to say exactly what actions you want to
have the target perform...I don't see an object of being able to decide
that.

Justin
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Justin Pinnow
jpinnow@*****.edu
Message no. 36
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 13:55:25 +0000
|
|OK Quick Question: Can you lock, quicken, ect., a Controle Actions spell?

You can quicken, lock or anchor ANY sustained spell....

So the answer is yes....

<Evil grin>

(Control thoughts would be more..... subtle though)
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ 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*<|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 37
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 11:09:59 GMT
Czar Eggbert writes

> OK Quick Question: Can you lock, quicken, ect., a Controle Actions spell?
>
Sure, but you might find changing the actions later rather tricky.

Suggestion is Much better (perm thought implanting no need to
quicken, no karma cost no way they can destroy it in astral combat),
or control thoughts, you are you friend AREN'T you:)

Mark
Message no. 38
From: "Arno R. Lehmann" <arlehma@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Magicians
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 01:57:47 +0100
On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 08:29:16 -0500, Justin Pinnow wrote:

>Arno R. Lehmann wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 08:39:32 -0500, Justin Pinnow wrote:
>
>> >Also, as far as the heal and treat spells are concerned, I would rule
>> >that the target of the spell be defined when cast into the lock....thus,
>> >it would most likely only heal the mage wearing the lock.
>
>> Should be the case with all spells to be sustained. And then - someone
already
>> wrote this idea - the damage level to be healed should also be pre-defined.
>> Then you get to have a spell lock "heal myself m-damage", "heal
Big
>> Al-the-troll d-damage" and so on. <little snip>

>Well, the person who wrote that was me, but I am retracting that
>statement, because the pre-chosen wound level thingie is from 1st
>edition. Thus, it no longer applies. However, the spell locked Heal
>spell is still not any more powerful than any other spell if you rule
>that the damage isn't healed until the end of the required amount of
>time has been reached.

Well, the 1st ed. point is clear. I did never look in 1st ed, but anyway, I
still like that concept. But ok, it's out of date.

In my rulebook (german version, I admit ...) it is stated, that permanent
spells have to be sustained for a certain time, before their effect gets
permanent. If the mage's concentration is broken before that, the effect
vanishes (it must have been there then) (cf. german version SRII, pg. 128). So
you should rule that the damage is healed instantly, and not after the amount
of time to reach permanentness (is this english?)

Arno

(The above mail from Justin Pinnow reached me privately, but I assume that it
was intended to go to the list)

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Magicians, 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!