Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Kevin Roberts <krst0023@****.NET>
Subject: Re: Magic question...
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 16:50:10 -0600
At 01:24 PM 3/6/97 EST, you wrote:
>Hello and welcome, Gossamer.
>
>Here is what I got from reading page 133 in the SR main book, for
>exclusive spells. 1) Exclusive spells require fetishes! So watch out how
>many times you cast the exclusive spell, else your mage may become
>addicted to them. 2) The exclusive spell is cast as if it was 2 force
>ratings higher, for detirmining the spells effects (i.e. resistance tests
>and damage), but not for drain. Drain is detirmined from the spells
>original force rating. 3) A mage cannot sustain spells, or use magical
>skills, while casting, or sustaining, an exclusive spell. 4) A fetish is
>usuable for one specific spell, you can't just buy a bunch, and use them
>where needed. 5) Magic pool dice is allocated based on the adjusted spell
>force rating (two force ratings higher than the original spell).
>
>Two problems. I'm working from memory here, but I'm almost positive that
>exclusive restrition and fetish-required are completely separate
>restrictions on spells. You can combine both, but exclusive means the
spell
>casting must be your only magical activity at the time, while fetish
>required means you must have a fetish to cast the spell, but may sustain a
>spell at the same time or stack or whatever.

>So, Exclusive +2 effective force, Reusable Fetish required +1 effective
>force, Expendable Fetish required +2 effective force.

>Second, magic pool dice limitations have nothing to do with the force of
the
>spell. The limit on magic pool that you can add to assist the spell
success
>test is the magic rating of the caster (modified by power foci,
ititiation,
>bioware, etc.). So, a mage with an essence of 6 magic rating of 6, and
>rating 6 power focus can potentially add 12 magic pool dice to aid even a
>force 1 spell.

> --DT
Yes and no.
Page 137 in the Shadowrun book second colum first paragraph.
The number of spell, power, or weapon Focii that one can
carry is equal to the number of the Players INT. If the shadowrunner has
a int of 6 then he/she/it can carry 6 Focii. If at any time wants
to carry more focii then he will have the problem of
Becomming a burned out mage and suffers a loss of a point of
Magic loss and some other bad stuff. That is in one of the
Books. I can't remember were it is.
If you pick up the Shadowrun Compedium it adds several optional
new pools.
Social, Athletics, dodge

There are other pools but that is off the topic...

end of line......



So Check with your GM If he wants you to use them or not.
Message no. 2
From: L Canthros <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic question...
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 22:22:37 EST
On Thu, 6 Mar 1997 16:50:10 -0600 Kevin Roberts <krst0023@****.NET>
writes:
<snip>
>Yes and no.
>Page 137 in the Shadowrun book second colum first paragraph.
>The number of spell, power, or weapon Focii that one can
>carry is equal to the number of the Players INT. If the shadowrunner
>has
>a int of 6 then he/she/it can carry 6 Focii. If at any time wants
>to carry more focii then he will have the problem of
>Becomming a burned out mage and suffers a loss of a point of
>Magic loss and some other bad stuff. That is in one of the
>Books. I can't remember were it is.
>If you pick up the Shadowrun Compedium it adds several optional
>new pools.
>Social, Athletics, dodge

You do realize that this discussion was about spell excusivity, don't
you? (not flaming, just...wondering) The restriction is only on ACTIVE
foci, foci that the magician has bonded and currently has running. Focus
addiction (the other thing you were talking about) occurs when the total
combined ratings of all of the magician's active foci exceeds the
character's Magic Attribute. It is in Awakenings, p 103.



<little snip>
>So Check with your GM If he wants you to use them or not.
>
Always check with your GM.

--
-Canthros
If any man wishes peace, canthros1@***.com
let him prepare for war. lobo1@****.com
--Roman proverb
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/
Message no. 3
From: Midn Daniel O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL>
Subject: Magic Question
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 15:00:56 -0500
Ok, got a question...can ritual spells be quickened?
Message no. 4
From: "Fisher, Victor" <Victor-Fisher@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic Question
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 18:06:43 -0500
>Midn Daniel o Fredri said:
>Ok, got a question...can ritual spells be quickened?

It would depend on the type of spell I think, but in general, yes.
Performing a ritual is probably the safest and easiest way to quickening
a spell, as the drain can be drawn out to make it more tolerable, or
karma spent can be taken from more than one individual.
Message no. 5
From: Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: Magic Question
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 03:32:04 +0000
On 20 Mar 97 at 15:00, Midn Daniel O Fredrikson wrote:
> Ok, got a question...can ritual spells be quickened?
Hm... what is a ritual spell?

Sascha
--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |The one who does not|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| learn from history |
| \___ __/ | | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | through it again. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | G. Santayana |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 6
From: Ray & Tamara <macey@*******.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Magic Question
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 13:07:35 +1000
> > Ok, got a question...can ritual spells be quickened?

> Hm... what is a ritual spell?

A spell cast by ritual sorcery I would guess.

Ray
Message no. 7
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic Question
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 11:07:42 +0000
|
|On 20 Mar 97 at 15:00, Midn Daniel O Fredrikson wrote:
|> Ok, got a question...can ritual spells be quickened?
|Hm... what is a ritual spell?

A spell cast as a ritual, with a team?

Come come Sascha, you really should know that one....

:)
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|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++ o+ 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! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 8
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Magic Question
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 11:12:29 +0000
On 24 Mar 97 at 11:07, Spike wrote:

> A spell cast as a ritual, with a team?
>

Speaking of ritual sorcery, can a shaman cast a ritual with his ally
spirit? According to the Grimoire, a spirit does have Sorcery skill,
and can be taught spells.





====DREKHEAD==============================================================
Tim Kerby | Never relax. Your run may be over, but someone,
drekhead@***.net |somewhere, is just starting his and the target
drekhead@***.com | could be you.
drekhead@*******.com | ---http://users.aol.com/drekhead/home.html---
=========================================================================
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GB d-(+) s: a C++(+++)>++++$ U--- P L+ E? W++>$ N o? K-? w+()>--- O++>$ M--
V? PS+ PE++ Y PGP- t++>$ 5 X+ R+ tv+ b++ DI++(+) D++ G e>++ h--- r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 9
From: Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: Magic Question
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 03:19:52 +0000
On 24 Mar 97 at 11:07, Spike wrote:
> |On 20 Mar 97 at 15:00, Midn Daniel O Fredrikson wrote:
> |> Ok, got a question...can ritual spells be quickened?
> |Hm... what is a ritual spell?
>
> A spell cast as a ritual, with a team?
>
> Come come Sascha, you really should know that one....
>
> :)
Glad you inserted that smiley, Spike, or I would have had to quote
something serious here :-/

'kay, back on-topic. As a "ritual spell", as Spike explained to me, is
a spell that's cast ritually, it's per Black Book p. 136 not
neccessarily a sustained one ("If the spell is successful, and requires
sustaining, [...]"). If it is one, I can't see a reason why it couldn't
be quickened....


Sascha
--
+---___---------+------------------------------------+------------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |Things that try to look |
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@ | like things often do |
| \___ __/ | Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.de | look more like things |
|==== \_/ ======|*Wearing hats is just a way of life*| than things. Well known|
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | fact. - E.Weatherwax |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 10
From: Josh Harrison mataxes@****.net
Subject: Magic Question
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 00:17:41 -0400
Please forgive the funky formatting... I sent this to the wrong list address
the first time, and it came back to me...

> While handling downtime after the adventuer conlcuded this past weekend a
> question came up that had me kind of stumped. I know that the force of
most
> spells limits the degree of effect you can get out of them -- for
instance,
> a force 4 Heal can only at most heal 4 boxes of damage, regardless of the
> number of successes actually generated.
>
> The shaman in my group (who follows the Dragonslayer totem/idol) wanted to
> learn the "Increase Reflexes" spell -- the one that adds dice to
initiative.
> He couldn't see any reason to take the spell at higher than Force 1,
because
> there is no degree of success for it; the spell either works or it
doesn't.
> So the spell was easy to find, buy, and learn.
>
> I can't say that I disagree with him -- it makes the drain much easier to
> resist, even with the +3 version he took. The only reason I could think of
> was that dispelling is based off the force of the target spell, and the
> spell will be knocked out fairly easily -- since Dispelling isn't
metamagic
> anymore, that is a valid concern (for once).
>
> Bu does this seem right to anybody else? There was no indication in the
> spell's description that the number of succeses had anything to do with
> casting the spell. Has anybody else encountered this, and what house rules
> have you developed, if any? I warned him that I may came to the game next
> week with a new ruling on the spell.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> -- Josh
>
>
>
Message no. 11
From: Sven De Herdt Sven.DeHerdt@******.com
Subject: Magic Question
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:08:02 +0200
Josh Harrison wrote:

<snip>
> > He couldn't see any reason to take the spell at higher than Force 1,
> because
> > there is no degree of success for it; the spell either works or it
> doesn't.
> > So the spell was easy to find, buy, and learn.
> >
> > I can't say that I disagree with him -- it makes the drain
> much easier to
> > resist, even with the +3 version he took. The only reason I
> could think of
> > was that dispelling is based off the force of the target
> spell, and the
> > spell will be knocked out fairly easily -- since Dispelling isn't
> metamagic
> > anymore, that is a valid concern (for once).
<snip>

I must admit that this supprized me too when I first read it, but I neither
found time nor the urge to develop a house rule for it yet.

But then again, it makes you wonder: do you, as a runner, want your
increased reflexes hanging at a silk thread that anyone with a nice pair of
scissor or a crappy knife could cut? Or do you want to be able to trust
your spells at a crucial moment without the worry that almost any magical
opposition can dispell them?

Perhaps you should introduce the player with this disadvantage the next time
the have an hostile encounter. See how he reacts when he finds his reflexes
dropping from "rabit-mode" to "snail-mode". You don't even have to
use
large magical offensives, just use a freshly awakened character that is
experiencing with his limited powers and found gang life a nice environment
to do this.

(* Ever seen a full-fledged and over confident sammy Troll being beat-up by
a ganger (unarmed combat: 4)? Just come and see my games! I must admit
that I was very lucky on the dice roll, but then again I always am when
GMing (just call it: faith).
Off course the ganger wouldn't stand a chance in a fire fight, but the
character just wanted to show off and the ganger kicked his huge ass.

Moral of the story: rules and numbers aren't really that important, all
depends on the way your handling things. The PC I was talking about did
learn his lesson and doesn't keep up the "I am untouchable"-act all the time
anymore. *)

Sorry for rambling on, these are just my thoughts and experiences,

-Sven :)
--
Message no. 12
From: Spike spike1@*******.co.uk
Subject: Magic Question
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:25:25 +0100 (BST)
And verily, didst Josh Harrison babble thusly...
[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> Please forgive the funky formatting... I sent this to the wrong list address
> the first time, and it came back to me...
>
> > While handling downtime after the adventuer conlcuded this past weekend a
> > question came up that had me kind of stumped. I know that the force of
> most
> > spells limits the degree of effect you can get out of them -- for
> instance,
> > a force 4 Heal can only at most heal 4 boxes of damage, regardless of the
> > number of successes actually generated.
> >
> > The shaman in my group (who follows the Dragonslayer totem/idol) wanted
> > to learn the "Increase Reflexes" spell -- the one that adds dice to
> > initiative. He couldn't see any reason to take the spell at higher than
> > Force 1, because there is no degree of success for it; the spell either
> > works or it doesn't. So the spell was easy to find, buy, and learn.

Well... The main reason to increase spell force on spells that have a fixed
effect is simply to make them resistant to attack...

Say your shaman casts the spell before going into combat, and the enemy have
a couple of elementals floating around in the astral...

One of them assenses the party and spots all the spells... Increase
attributes spells give the party a big combat advantage, so they send one of
their force 3 elementals to deal with it...

The spell doesn't really stand a chance. The only thing the shaman can do is
assign magic pool to help defend the spell, but with a target number of 2 to
kill it, it only having one dice to defend itself, and the possibility of
magical combat (and the need to use his magic pool for other things), it's
dead, Jim...

If he'd cast it at force 4, it would've had a fair chance of defending
itself.

A force 1 spell has no better defence than a spell lock.

--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spike1@*******.co.uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 13
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Trevor Lange)
Subject: Magic question
Date: Mon Aug 6 16:00:02 2001
I have a dumb question. I have been reading the magic rules. One thing about
them seems to confuse me. When allocating dice for spell defense or casting,
first when is the right time to allocate, i.e. before first turn or combat,
or when it is your turn, and do you split up your sorcery dice i.e. allocate
2 spell pool dice and 2 sorcery dice to spell defense, leaving you with say
4 sorcery dice to cast spells with assuming your sorcery skill was 6. any
reply would be helpful. thank you.

Trevor L.
jtnlange@*******.com

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Message no. 14
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Magic question
Date: Tue Aug 7 00:50:01 2001
Trevor Lange writes:

> I have a dumb question. I have been reading the magic rules. One thing
> about them seems to confuse me. When allocating dice for spell defense or
> casting, first when is the right time to allocate, i.e. before first turn
> or combat, or when it is your turn, and do you split up your sorcery dice
> i.e. allocate 2 spell pool dice and 2 sorcery dice to spell defense,
> leaving you with say 4 sorcery dice to cast spells with assuming your
> sorcery skill was 6. any reply would be helpful. thank you.

Actually, your queston got me thinking (see below).

Spell Defense is allocated as a Free Action (see the first sentence of the
last paragraph in the Spell Defence rules on p 183 SR3, just before the
example). Thus, Sorcery and Spell Pool dice may be dedicated to Spell
Defense at any time you have a Free Action to do so. Looking at the rules
for Free Actions (p 105 SR3), each character has a Free Action on each of
the Combat Phases in which they have an Action. They also have a Free Action
during the Combat Phase of any other character. However, they may not take
Free Actions in the first Pass in the first Turn before the first Combat
Phase in which they have a Action.

However, since Spell Defence may be allocated more or less at any time to
targets within the magicians range (Magic x 100 m) on the same plane, it is
quite OK to allocate these dice before combat ever occurs, so long as your
targets do not leave your range and you or them do not change planes.

The bit that gets me a little confused, however, is that you can allocate
Sorcery dice to Spell Defence. What happens to these dice once allocated?
How about once used? The rules seem unclear (unless I'm missing something
;-)). The implication is, I think, that these allocated Sorcery dice are
unavailable for use until next Turn. What does everyone else think?

The thing that really complicates this is that the Spellcasting rules (p 181
SR3) also say to allocate Sorcery dice to the spell being cast. What happens
to these dice once the spell is cast? Are they, too, gone until next Turn?

I was always under the impression that Skill dice were never "used up" in
the same manner as Dice Pools. Super Speedy Silly Sammy would be rather
redundant if his SMGs 6 had to be spread over 6 Actions when he rolled his
51 Initiative! (Well, I guess he could change guns a alot and have many
different gun Skills :-)) However, it does seem as if Sorcery skill dice can
be "used up" in much the same manner as Dice Pools. This would, I mention as
an aside, place a serious cap on the power of Sorcery.

What does everyone else think?

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a25 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W+ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X+>+++ R++ !tv(--) b+ DI+++@ D G+
e++>++++$ h- r++>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 15
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Chris Maxfield)
Subject: Magic question
Date: Tue Aug 7 05:35:00 2001
Records show that at 14:43 on Tuesday 7/08/01, Damion Milliken scribbled:
>The bit that gets me a little confused, however, is that you can allocate
>Sorcery dice to Spell Defence. What happens to these dice once allocated?
>How about once used? The rules seem unclear (unless I'm missing something
>;-)). The implication is, I think, that these allocated Sorcery dice are
>unavailable for use until next Turn. What does everyone else think?
>
>The thing that really complicates this is that the Spellcasting rules (p 181
>SR3) also say to allocate Sorcery dice to the spell being cast. What happens
>to these dice once the spell is cast? Are they, too, gone until next Turn?

Sorcery is certainly the most unusual skill. The way I interpret the rules
is that Sorcery dice may be allocated or reallocated between any of its
uses on a free action (Spell Casting, Spell Defense, Shielding, Astral
Combat, etc.). Only the dice that are allocated to a purpose may be used
for that purpose. For all of the uses of Sorcery, except one, the dice are
always available for their allocated purpose (eg. if 4 dice are allocated
to Spell Casting then the magician always has Sorcery 4 for Spell Casting,
if 3 dice are allocated to Astral Combat then the magician always has a
skill of 3 in astral combat).

The one exception to this is Spell Defense. Once Sorcery dice are allocated
to a Spell Defence Pool then those dice must follow the standard Pool rules
i.e. once used, pool dice are gone and do not refresh until the start of
the next Turn. The important point is the "once used" phrase. As long as
the Sorcery dice hang round in a Spell Defense Pool unused, they may be
reallocated on a free action to another purpose, but once rolled in Spell
Defence they're gone until next turn i.e. are unavailable for use in
another purpose. Once the Spell Defense Pool refreshes at the beginning of
the next Turn, the Sorcery dice may be reallocated, on a free action, to
another purpose e.g. to Spell Casting. The same goes for the Spell Pool
dice allocated to Spell Defense.

That's how I understand it. :-)

Chris
Message no. 16
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Magic question
Date: Tue Aug 7 11:30:01 2001
Chris Maxfield writes:

> Sorcery is certainly the most unusual skill. The way I interpret the rules
> is that Sorcery dice may be allocated or reallocated between any of its
> uses on a free action (Spell Casting, Spell Defense, Shielding, Astral
> Combat, etc.). Only the dice that are allocated to a purpose may be used
> for that purpose. For all of the uses of Sorcery, except one, the dice are
> always available for their allocated purpose (eg. if 4 dice are allocated
> to Spell Casting then the magician always has Sorcery 4 for Spell Casting,
> if 3 dice are allocated to Astral Combat then the magician always has a
> skill of 3 in astral combat).

Hmm, this would seem like a good interpretation, except that it sometimes
leaves magicians wide open in a way that is not mentioned at all in the
books. Say I'm astrally perceiving and allocate 4 dice to casting a spell,
and 2 dice to Spell Defence. The next person to act is a projecting magician
who attacks me. Suddenly I have no Sorcery dice to use for astral combat...

I tend to think that the reference to allocating dice in the Spellcasting
section is meant for multiple spell stacking (which is covered immediately
after the mention of allocating Sorcery dice). AFAIK, no other use of
Sorcery mentions allocating dice, except for Spell Defence. I agree, however,
on your interpretation of Spell Defence, in that dice allocated to it, once
used, do not return until your Pools refresh.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a25 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W+ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X+>+++ R++ !tv(--) b+ DI+++@ D G+
e++>++++$ h- r++>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 17
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Magic question
Date: Tue Aug 7 11:45:00 2001
On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Damion Milliken wrote:

>
> Hmm, this would seem like a good interpretation, except that it sometimes
> leaves magicians wide open in a way that is not mentioned at all in the
> books. Say I'm astrally perceiving and allocate 4 dice to casting a spell,
> and 2 dice to Spell Defence. The next person to act is a projecting magician
> who attacks me. Suddenly I have no Sorcery dice to use for astral combat...
>

this is how I saw it, also, which made sense, for me, as to why armed and
unarmed combat feature in the astral combat rules. a spell happy mage
might need to
resort to non-magical defense to protect himself, and with this
intepretation, it makes sense for him to have to; especially if he is
attacked by multiple oppoents - if he uses all his sorcery dice on the
first one, he's defenseless againt the second, but not if he knows kung
fu!

besides, its Yet Another thing To Spend Karma On for mages :-)


--
jconstable@*****.com
-Do you think you can really scare me with your puny little....hum....
you've got another weapon....- Ikarus7
Message no. 18
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Chris Maxfield)
Subject: Magic question
Date: Tue Aug 7 19:10:01 2001
Records show that at 01:26 on Wednesday 8/08/01, Damion Milliken scribbled:
>Chris Maxfield writes:
>> for that purpose. For all of the uses of Sorcery, except one, the dice are
>> always available for their allocated purpose (eg. if 4 dice are allocated
>> to Spell Casting then the magician always has Sorcery 4 for Spell Casting,
>> if 3 dice are allocated to Astral Combat then the magician always has a
>> skill of 3 in astral combat).
>
>Hmm, this would seem like a good interpretation, except that it sometimes
>leaves magicians wide open in a way that is not mentioned at all in the
>books. Say I'm astrally perceiving and allocate 4 dice to casting a spell,
>and 2 dice to Spell Defence. The next person to act is a projecting magician
>who attacks me. Suddenly I have no Sorcery dice to use for astral combat...

I believe that is exactly the consequence intended by the rules. A magician
must judge and allocate his Sorcery dice carefully. ;-)

>I tend to think that the reference to allocating dice in the Spellcasting
>section is meant for multiple spell stacking (which is covered immediately
>after the mention of allocating Sorcery dice). AFAIK, no other use of
>Sorcery mentions allocating dice, except for Spell Defence. I agree, however,

See the bottom of page 174 in SR3, Astral Combat Tests, where it says 'Note
that using Sorcery in this manner does "use up" Sorcery dice for the
purposes of spell defense, spellcasting and so on.' This seems to me to be
saying that Sorcery dice allocated to astral combat are no longer available
for other purposes until the dice are reallocated. In addition, the
description of Shielding in MITS also describes the allocation of exactly
the same dice used in Spell Defense to Shielding, which means it talking
about Sorcery (and Spell Pool) dice.

Chris

--
Chris Maxfield <cmaxfiel@****.org.au>
Canberra, Australia

We are restless because of incessant change,
but we would be frightened if change were stopped.
Message no. 19
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Magic question
Date: Sun Aug 12 01:30:04 2001
Chris Maxfield writes:

> See the bottom of page 174 in SR3, Astral Combat Tests, where it says 'Note
> that using Sorcery in this manner does "use up" Sorcery dice for the
> purposes of spell defense, spellcasting and so on.' This seems to me to be
> saying that Sorcery dice allocated to astral combat are no longer available
> for other purposes until the dice are reallocated. In addition, the
> description of Shielding in MITS also describes the allocation of exactly
> the same dice used in Spell Defense to Shielding, which means it talking
> about Sorcery (and Spell Pool) dice.

Hmmm. Wow! You're right, Chris! I never reaslised that Sorcery is a _very_
different skill to any other - it's more like a Dice Pool than a skill.

I see that in addition to your interpretation, it would be possible to "use
up" Sorcery dice for each use of Sorcery the same way they are "used up"
for
Spell Defence. ie, Astral Combat uses Sorcery dice up as if they were a
Pool. Spell Defence and Shielding, if actually used to protect against
spells, also use up the dice like a Pool (otherwise they may be reallocated
for a Free Action). Spellcasting _implies_ that it uses up the dice like
Astral Combat, but does not specifically state this. This would be extremely
limiting for Sorcery.

BTW, Dispelling (p 184 SR3) makes no comment on "using up" Sorcery dice. How
do you rule with this?

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a25 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W+ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X+>+++ R++ !tv(--) b+ DI+++@ D G+
e++>++++$ h- r++>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 20
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Chris Maxfield)
Subject: Magic question
Date: Sun Aug 12 04:50:01 2001
Records show that at 15:26 on Sunday 12/08/01, Damion Milliken scribbled:
>Hmmm. Wow! You're right, Chris! I never reaslised that Sorcery is a _very_
>different skill to any other - it's more like a Dice Pool than a skill.

Yep. A player has to carefully consider and allocate every one of his
Sorcery skill dice to each specific purpose, and reallocate as needed
(where possible) on his free actions. If not done this gives rise to
scenarios GMs love: GM to projecting player "Your manabolt blew away the
spirit but you're attacked by another spirit", player "I counterattack!",
GM - "How? Mawahahahaha!".

>I see that in addition to your interpretation, it would be possible to "use
>up" Sorcery dice for each use of Sorcery the same way they are "used
up" for
>Spell Defence. ie, Astral Combat uses Sorcery dice up as if they were a

Yeah. I'm convinced, however, that this is just clumsy wording in the
Astral Combat section where "used up" just means "unavailable".
Nowhere
else in the section are the Sorcery dice allocated to astral combat
described in a "Pool" like way. So I've interpreted this wording to not
mean burnt, just unavailable.

>Pool. Spell Defence and Shielding, if actually used to protect against
>spells, also use up the dice like a Pool (otherwise they may be reallocated

Not Shielding. It specifically states that all allocated dice are
perpetually protecting the subjects in *all* Spell Resistance Tests and may
be reallocated to different subjects on an Action. This means the Shielding
dice cannot be used up - even the Spell Pool dice allocated to Shielding.

The Reflecting metamagic, however, is explicitly described as working like
Spell Defense and nowhere in the text does anything clarify this statement.
By this description, dice allocated to Reflecting should be burnt on use
until they are refreshed on the next Turn, just like Spell Defense. On the
other hand, the Reflecting mechanics do not seem to describe a pool of
dice. Additionally, Reflecting, as a metamagic, should therefore be a "good
thing". For these reasons, I interpret Reflecting to not exhaust the
Sorcery dice used in it.

>for a Free Action). Spellcasting _implies_ that it uses up the dice like
>Astral Combat, but does not specifically state this. This would be extremely
>limiting for Sorcery.

It would certainly be a "bad thing", IMHO. Luckily, there are only a couple
of weak implications in the description of Spellcasting that seem to imply
that Sorcery dice allocated to Spellcasting are gone. However, I think
they're just poor wordings, once again, and Spellcasting does not exhaust
Sorcery dice.

>BTW, Dispelling (p 184 SR3) makes no comment on "using up" Sorcery dice.
How
>do you rule with this?

IMHO, Dispelling does not burn Sorcery dice.

In summary, Sorcery dice must be allocated to each of the following
purposes separately and on a Free Action: The Sorcery skill specializations
of Spellcasting, Spell Defense, Dispelling and Astral Combat; and the
metamagics Reflecting and Shielding. Only in Spell Defense, when they're
rolled against a spell, are the Sorcery dice burnt until they refresh at
the start of the next Turn. Otherwise, any Sorcery die can be reallocated
to any other purpose on a Free Action.

Note, also, that Sorcery Skill Tests are made when Erasing Astral
Signatures, and in the metamagics of Cleansing and Quickening. But, from
their descriptions, Sorcery dice do not need to be allocated to these
purposes (nor can Spell Pool dice be added). Rather, they are pure, regular
skill tests.

That's how I see it. :-)

--
Chris Maxfield <chris@*****.com.au>
Canberra, Australia

Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart: "You know, just once I'd like to meet an
alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets."
Message no. 21
From: owen@***.edu.au (Owen McKerrow)
Subject: Magic Question
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:04:03 +1100
Hi All,

This situation arose in my last session and was wondering what you all
thought. The group have "detained" a person and are holding her. They
notice someone is trying to astrally track her using ritual sorcery.
Realizing this they move the subject into a astral barrier. AFTER the
link has been made, but not before the spell has been completed. What
happens here ?

The way I played it to keep things moving was to count the number of
successes the character casting the astral barrier spell made and
subtract these from the initial Tracking roll of the NPC mage. i.e.
just like the character was in an astral barrier in the first place. If
they had enough success to effect the outcome i.e. reduce the initial
tracking success to 0 or less then the link was broken. If not it
stayed up. In this case they broke the link.
However, what is to stop them keep on casting an Astral Barrier Spell
until the link is broken ?

Thoughts ?

Owen

'The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two
opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still be able to
function.'
-F.Scott Fitzgerald,
Message no. 22
From: chris@*******.com (Chris)
Subject: Magic Question
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:52:04 +1100
Records show that at 11:04 AM on Wednesday 17/12/2003 AEDT, Owen McKerrow
advised:
>This situation arose in my last session and was wondering what you all
>thought. The group have "detained" a person and are holding her. They
>notice someone is trying to astrally track her using ritual sorcery.
>Realizing this they move the subject into a astral barrier. AFTER the
>link has been made, but not before the spell has been completed. What
>happens here ?
>The way I played it to keep things moving was to count the number of
>successes the character casting the astral barrier spell made and
>subtract these from the initial Tracking roll of the NPC mage. i.e.
>just like the character was in an astral barrier in the first place. If
>they had enough success to effect the outcome i.e. reduce the initial
>tracking success to 0 or less then the link was broken. If not it
>stayed up. In this case they broke the link.
>However, what is to stop them keep on casting an Astral Barrier Spell
>until the link is broken ?
>
>Thoughts ?

In my opinion, once the link has been established no freshly erected astral
barrier will make a difference. Astral barriers only come into the
targeting of spells and once a link is established, the Targeting phase is
over - any new barriers are irrelevant. Further, SOTA has the Severing
metamagic for breaking the connection between a target and a ritual team.
Severing works after Targeting has been completed and Sending has begun.
Requiring a metamagic to break a ritual is a pretty strong indication that
more basic methods don't work.

In similar circumstances to your game, I would rule that the new astral
barrier has no effect. :-)

Chris
Message no. 23
From: shirogr@*****.com (Shiro BsquLadat)
Subject: Magic Question
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 04:19:38 -0800 (PST)
> In my opinion, once the link has been established no
> freshly erected astral
> barrier will make a difference. Astral barriers only
> come into the
> targeting of spells and once a link is established,
> the Targeting phase is
> over - any new barriers are irrelevant. Further,
> SOTA has the Severing
> metamagic for breaking the connection between a
> target and a ritual team.
> Severing works after Targeting has been completed
> and Sending has begun.
> Requiring a metamagic to break a ritual is a pretty
> strong indication that
> more basic methods don't work.

My thoughts exactly, I use this rule in my games too
and noone has complainted.

====

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
Message no. 24
From: owen@***.edu.au (Owen McKerrow)
Subject: Magic Question
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:52:57 +1100
On Thursday, December 18, 2003, at 10:52 PM, Chris wrote:

> Further, SOTA has the Severing metamagic for breaking the connection
> between a target and a ritual team. Severing works after Targeting has
> been completed and Sending has begun. Requiring a metamagic to break a
> ritual is a pretty strong indication that more basic methods don't
> work.

Thanks for that. I don't have SOTA so was not aware that meta magic
feat existed.

Following on can some one give me the exact reference to where it says
that walls/solid object of the astral plane are opaque not translucent
although you can still pass through them. i.e. you can't see through
them but you can walk through them.

I have a player saying that's not the case. I can just do the "Im the
GM, this is my version, like it or lump it " thing, but Im sure I've
read that somewhere and would like to show it to him.

Thanks
Owen


'The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two
opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still be able to
function.'
-F.Scott Fitzgerald,
Message no. 25
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Magic Question
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 11:05:40 +0100
According to Owen McKerrow, on Monday 22 December 2003 05:52 the word on
the street was...

> Following on can some one give me the exact reference to where it says
> that walls/solid object of the astral plane are opaque not translucent
> although you can still pass through them. i.e. you can't see through
> them but you can walk through them.

That's covered by the astral space section in SR3, IIRC (though to be
honest it's one of those things most players tend to take for granted
without needing a book reference for it :) Page 171, under The Astral
Plane, it says "While being in astral space can perceive the physical
world, they cannot directly affect it."

Also, on page 173 under Astral Senses, SR3 says "Physical things are
intangible to your astral form; you can pass through them harmlessly." The
last paragraph above Astral Detection in the right-hand column of this
same page goes into slightly more detail.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
If you don't ask questions then you don't know why
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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. 26
From: dreamrhythm@*******.com (Dream Rhythm)
Subject: Magic Question
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:41:54 -0500
Gurth opined...

>>Following on can some one give me the exact reference to where it says
>>that walls/solid object of the astral plane are opaque not translucent
>>although you can still pass through them. i.e. you can't see through
>>them but you can walk through them.

>That's covered by the astral space section in SR3, IIRC (though to be
>honest it's one of those things most players tend to take for granted
>without needing a book reference for it :) Page 171, under The Astral
>Plane, it says "While being in astral space can perceive the physical
>world, they cannot directly affect it."
This quote from the official FAQ might also help to clear things up.
"Question: Is glass/clear plastic see-through when astrally perceiving?"
"Answer: The basic rule of thumb is this: if you can see through it in the
physical world, then you can see through it on the astral plane. If you
can't see through it physically, then you can't see through it astrally,
either. The only real exceptions are astral barriers (and other astral
things), which are at least partially opaque on the astral, but physically
invisible."

Fortune

_________________________________________________________________
Enjoy the holiday season with great tips from MSN.
http://special.msn.com/network/happyholidays.armx

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Magic Question, 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.