Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Ioannis Fikouras <j07c@***.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject:	Magic Questions
Date:	Thu, 28 Oct 1993 13:51:39 +0100

Message no. 1 Yo chummers!

First of all thanks for your views on the Tir Campaign.
So here come some more questions.

Is a peson using astral perception in anu way detectable
physicly or magically ? I mean does he has this look on his face
or maybe he keeps stumbling or something, does he give off
a special aura in asrral space.

The rules state that a person using astral peception has a
+2 to all target numbers concerning physical actions but they
dont explain why. Maybe the +2 TN is just because they cant see
that good what with all the astral images mixing up with the
physical world.
So lets hear some ideas chummers!

--

Strong am I with the Force... but not that strong!
Twilight is upon me and soon night must fall.
That is the way of things ... the way of the Force.

From:	The Powerhouse <P.C.Steele@*********.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Thu, 28 Oct 1993 12:57:28 GMT

Message no. 2 > Is a peson using astral perception in anu way detectable
> physicly or magically ? I mean does he has this look on his face
> or maybe he keeps stumbling or something, does he give off
> a special aura in asrral space.

The person is fully detectable magically, all the magician has to do is look in
astral space and they will find the astrally percieving person grinning back
at them. While perceiving you are also vulnerable to astral attack.

Physically I'd say the person looks distracted, maybe a slightly glazed look
will come over their eyes as they try to focus on two planes at once.

Phill.
--
Phillip Steele - Email address P.C.Steele@***.ac.uk | An Uzi a day keeps the
Department Of Electrical & Electronic Engineering | politicians at bay O O
University Of Newcastle Upon Tyne, England | |
Land of the mad Geordies | The Powerhouse \_/

From:	The Deb Decker <RJR96326@****.UTULSA.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Thu, 28 Oct 1993 14:15:12 GMT

Message no. 3 > Is a peson using astral perception in anu way detectable
> physicly or magically ? I mean does he has this look on his face
> or maybe he keeps stumbling or something, does he give off
> a special aura in asrral space.

A person who is astrally projecting (PWAP)'s body is asleep; it lies on
the ground like the proverbial sack of potatoes. For someone just assensing,
They have the +2 mod you noted below. You could either have a Perception
test to notice if someone was assensing or roll if the assensing mage
blows one of his tasks because of the modifier.

Also, both states of being are discernable astrally.

> The rules state that a person using astral peception has a
> +2 to all target numbers concerning physical actions but they
> dont explain why. Maybe the +2 TN is just because they cant see
> that good what with all the astral images mixing up with the
> physical world.

You see both. Have you ever seen two video images mixed together on TV,
either accidentally or for effect? Same thing. Or, for an audio analogy, try
listening to two songs at the same time.

J Roberson

From:	Mark Imbriaco <mai@**.ODU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Thu, 28 Oct 1993 16:13:33 -0400

Message no. 4 On Thu, 28 Oct 1993, The Deb Decker wrote:

> > Is a peson using astral perception in anu way detectable
> > physicly or magically ? I mean does he has this look on his face
> > or maybe he keeps stumbling or something, does he give off
> > a special aura in asrral space.
>
> A person who is astrally projecting (PWAP)'s body is asleep; it lies on
> the ground like the proverbial sack of potatoes. For someone just assensing,
> They have the +2 mod you noted below. You could either have a Perception
> test to notice if someone was assensing or roll if the assensing mage
> blows one of his tasks because of the modifier.
>
> Also, both states of being are discernable astrally.
>
> > The rules state that a person using astral peception has a
> > +2 to all target numbers concerning physical actions but they
> > dont explain why. Maybe the +2 TN is just because they cant see
> > that good what with all the astral images mixing up with the
> > physical world.
>
> You see both. Have you ever seen two video images mixed together on TV,
> either accidentally or for effect? Same thing. Or, for an audio analogy, try
> listening to two songs at the same time.
>
Yeah, but he asked about Astral PERCEPTION, no Projection.. :)

From:	The Deb Decker <RJR96326@****.UTULSA.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Thu, 28 Oct 1993 22:30:29 GMT

Message no. 5 > A person who is astrally projecting (PWAP)'s body is asleep; it lies on
> the ground like the proverbial sack of potatoes. For someone just assensing,
^^^^^^^^^

> > The rules state that a person using astral peception has a

> You see both. Have you ever seen two video images mixed together on TV,
> either accidentally or for effect? Same thing. Or, for an audio analogy, try
> listening to two songs at the same time.

IDIOT>Yeah, but he asked about Astral PERCEPTION, no Projection.. :)

Hmm, maybe that's why I include not one but TWO references on top of
everything else. And I didn't even quote the entire message to make my
point, either. :)

J Roberson
Good Halloween Costume> Pirate
Bad Halloween Costume> Pinata

From:	Mark Imbriaco <mai@**.ODU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Thu, 28 Oct 1993 23:44:48 -0400

Message no. 6 On Thu, 28 Oct 1993 RJR96326@****.utulsa.edu wrote:
>
> IDIOT>Yeah, but he asked about Astral PERCEPTION, no Projection.. :)
>
> Hmm, maybe that's why I include not one but TWO references on top of
> everything else. And I didn't even quote the entire message to make my
> point, either. :)
>
>
> J Roberson

Ooooooops! :) <Self inflicted THWAP!>

From:	Chris Siebenmann <cks@********.UTCS.TORONTO.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Fri, 29 Oct 1993 00:19:36 -0400

Message no. 7 Other people have already commented that people doing astral
perception are visible as such on the astral plane.

I would have the shamanic mask partially manifest for shamans doing
this; it seems to make sense, as you are opening a door into your
totem's world. I'm not sure what I'd have happen for hermetics, if
anything truly visible. They would at least look distracted.

Of course, I don't like astral projection and perception as it
stands; far too convenient a dowsing rod and scouting tool. The True
World should be different and dangerous, not something you use like a
pair of sunglasses. Adopt Carl Rigney's rules on it, or something
similar.

- cks

From:	The Deb Decker <RJR96326@****.UTULSA.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Fri, 29 Oct 1993 01:13:05 GMT

Message no. 8 >>Ooooooops! :) <Self inflicted THWAP!>

Here, have some Bactine kid. :)

J Roberson

From:	The Lurker <robert@*****.NB.CA>
Subject:	Magic Questions
Date:	Fri, 9 Jun 1995 18:08:47 -0300

Message no. 9 How big an object an Invisibility (or Improved Invisibility) spell can effect.

(If anyone answers with WYTIWYG my troll bodyguard will show up at their
door to cure them of this annoying magic acronym problems.)
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ +
+ What do you know,The light really The Lurker +
+ does go out when you close the door! ||| robert@*****.nb.ca +
+ (o o) +
+--------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo----------------------+

From:	Menard Steve <menars@***.UMONTREAL.CA>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Fri, 9 Jun 1995 23:03:19 -0400

Message no. 10 On Fri, 9 Jun 1995, The Lurker wrote:

> How big an object an Invisibility (or Improved Invisibility) spell can effect.
>
> (If anyone answers with WYTIWYG my troll bodyguard will show up at their
> door to cure them of this annoying magic acronym problems.)
As far as I know, these spells can affect anything that has a living
aura. To camouflage a vehicle or anything unliving you'd need a special
version, just live vehicle masking.

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

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Sat, 10 Jun 1995 13:31:12 +0200

Message no. 11 >How big an object an Invisibility (or Improved Invisibility) spell can effect.

Any size, I would say... wait a sec, that means you can touch the ground and
make the earth invisible... maybe you could use TN modifiers like +1 per
cubic meter over the caster's Magic Attribute for instance.

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

From:	Daniel Kollmer <dkollmer@**.OR.AT>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Mon, 12 Jun 1995 16:10:00 +0200

Message no. 12 >How big an object an Invisibility (or Improved Invisibility) spell can effect.
>
I'd say force+1 per 2 successes cubicmeters maximum size.
HAVE A GOOD DAY-HAVE A BETTER TIME
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

E.lectron P.owered S.ound P.erformance
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

From:	Steve Kenson <TalonMail@***.COM>
Subject:	Magic Questions
Date:	Tue, 2 Dec 1997 15:54:29 -0500

Message no. 13 Simon.M wrote:
>Is it possible to push someone in the way of a spell ment for you?
>Combat spells never miss, but how fast do they travel?

In the way of a combat spell, no. In the way of a damaging manipulation,
maybe. As you pointed out, combat spells don't miss. If the caster got any
successes at all, the spell zeroes in on the target aura and zips off after
it. Spells in astral space travel at Fast Astral Movement (roughly Force x
1,000 kph).

Richard Gaywood wrote:
>But, combat spells don't travel instantly, as a mage on the Astral with a
>delayed action can intercept them and engage them in astral combat.
>Further, if a spell hits a living barrier, say a Mana Barrier spell, would
>it go off?

Correct, spells do not travel instantly, only NEARLY instantly. A Force 5
spell zips through the astral at 5,000 kph, pretty fast when it only has to
cover (say) 100 meters to its target. That's why even an astral form has to
have a held action to intercept a spell: the bleedin' things as fast, if not
faster, than the astral form. Generally speaking, I figure an astral form has
to be no farther from the target of the spell than the spellcaster to have a
chance of intercepting. If it's seriously in doubt, you can always use the
Astral Evasion rules from SRII as a guideline for whether or not an
interception is possible. (Basically, an opposed test of Magic vs. Force, TN
4).

There are really two ways of handling spells hitting astral barriers:
increase the target number of the spell or run an astral combat between the
spell and the barrier. Increasing the target number (by +1 for every 2 rating
points of the barrier) factors in the resistance of the barrier and reduces
the effect of the spell somewhat. It's a fast-and-dirty system for simulating
the quick astral combat that takes place when the spell tries to go through.
The more accurate, but far more complex, way is to run an actual astral
combat between the spell and the barrier using the normal rules. IMHO, if you
use the increased target number method suggested for Mana Barrier, hermetic
circles and medicine lodges, you shouldn't use astral combat as well. Both
methods are simulating the same thing. By using both, you hit the spellcaster
with a double-whammy.

>OK, consider this - spell goes off and a mage bungs a mana barrier in
>front of it. He wouldn't have time to cast a barrier, but if he has enough
>time on the Astral to intercept, he prob' has enough time to move an
>existing barrier into the way (if you let mages move barriers, that is ;).
>So then what happens? I reckon the spell and barrier go into Astral
>combat.

Simple one. Barriers, once created, are immobile. If you allow the caster to
move a barrier as a kind of block, see the options above.

>Also, what if you could place a dummy auro in the way of the spell that
>looked like it's target? Som sort of illusion spell which duplicates a
>person's aura. Take an opposed force test to see if the illusion spell
>fools the incoming and Robert's you mother's brother - magical chaff.

Doesn't work, IMHO. Remember, "all things reveal their true forms and natures
when viewed in astral space" (p.145, SRII). Illusion spells don't work in the
astral. Illusion spells cannot duplicate or alter auras.

mjohnson@*.ARIZONA.EDU wrote:
>1) The wording in the BBB for using Spell Defense dice is confusing. at
>what point do you have to say you want to use it? At the beginning of the
>round? Every 10 phases? can you allocate right when you are being attacked
>by a spell if you didn't previously allocate it? do you have to know you're
>being attacked by a spell in this case?

Spell Defense dice are allocated during Step 2(B) of the Combat Turn
Sequence. When the sorcerer declares his actions, he may also allocate dice
from his Magic Pool to spell defense and declare which targets he is choosing
to protect. Those dice are set aside until a target under the sorcerer's
protection is hit by a spell. Then the sorcerer allocates spell defense dice
to the target(s) as he chooses, to aid their Resistance Test.

A sorcerer who is hit by a spell is allowed to use any unallocated Magic Pool
dice to help resist it (p. 131, SRII). This is a reflexive action on the part
of the sorcerer and takes place the instant the Spell Resistance Test is
made. The player chooses how many spell defense and Magic Pool dice are used.

Spell Defense dice, once used, are expended. When the sorcerer's Magic Pool
refreshes, Spell Defense dice may be re-allocated.

>2) what is the rule concerning dual-natured beings and wards? Can a
>dual-natured being walk through a ward? I can't find a rule concerning
>this.

As several people pointed out, wards act as astral barriers. They are solid,
opaque walls as far as dual beings are concerned. To pass through a ward, a
dual being must overcome it in astral combat.

Physads and Shielding (from various people):

Sorry, folks, but physical adepts do not get Magic Pool and they do not get
Shielding dice of any sort. Only initiates able to use Sorcery (i.e.,
magicians, sorcery adepts, elemental adepts, and shamanic adepts) get
Shielding dice. You can certainly allow it as a house rule if it works in
your game.

On a related note, I hope to put some effort into smoothing out the various
powers and advantages of physical adepts in Shadowrun 3 and the Big Book o'
Magic.

Sorcery and Spellcasting (from various people):

I would like to make spellcasting work more like other uses of skill in
Shadowrun, but nothing definite has been established at this point, so I
can't really say what is being considered.

Take care all,
Steve

From:	"J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Tue, 2 Dec 1997 16:37:46 -0500

Message no. 14 In a message dated 97-12-02 16:14:27 EST, TalonMail@***.COM writes:

I snipped the vast majority, as I found myself agreeing and/or understanding
the rest of it. The following however is something that I feel should be
considered....

> >Also, what if you could place a dummy auro in the way of the spell that
> >looked like it's target? Som sort of illusion spell which duplicates a
> >person's aura. Take an opposed force test to see if the illusion spell
> >fools the incoming and Robert's you mother's brother - magical chaff.
>
> Doesn't work, IMHO. Remember, "all things reveal their true forms and
> natures
> when viewed in astral space" (p.145, SRII). Illusion spells don't work in
> the
> astral. Illusion spells cannot duplicate or alter auras.

Okay, true enough, but what about a "Complexity Modifier" that could allow
for an Illusion spell to have a chance to not be quite so "penetratable". I,
and the game group here, have looked at it from the point of view of
designing Illusion spells to confuse Detection spells. Say something that
would work similarly to a "Mana Shroud" from the Awakenings book.

It isn't that impossible to consider, and offers other chances at "stealth"
against Detect Enemies and/or Detect Intruder type of magic.

-K

From:	Jeremiah Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Fri, 5 Dec 1997 22:06:42 -0500

Message no. 15 On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, J. Keith Henry wrote:

>
> > >Also, what if you could place a dummy auro in the way of the spell that
> > >looked like it's target? Som sort of illusion spell which duplicates a
> > >person's aura. Take an opposed force test to see if the illusion spell
> > >fools the incoming and Robert's you mother's brother - magical chaff.
> >
> > Doesn't work, IMHO. Remember, "all things reveal their true forms and
> > natures
> > when viewed in astral space" (p.145, SRII). Illusion spells don't work in
> > the
> > astral. Illusion spells cannot duplicate or alter auras.
>
> Okay, true enough, but what about a "Complexity Modifier" that could allow
> for an Illusion spell to have a chance to not be quite so "penetratable".
I,
> and the game group here, have looked at it from the point of view of
> designing Illusion spells to confuse Detection spells. Say something that
> would work similarly to a "Mana Shroud" from the Awakenings book.
>
> It isn't that impossible to consider, and offers other chances at "stealth"
> against Detect Enemies and/or Detect Intruder type of magic.
>
I like the idea of Illusion spells cast only in astral space. Obviously,
an illusion cast in the material world would be revealed to be so in
astral, but an illusion cast in astral could work. I would think,
actually, that astral space would be conducive to illusions, as an astral
mage can essentially will into existence any prop he wishes- clothing,
jewlery etc. Thus, an illusion spell would be a more concentrated act of
will designed to create something to deliberatly fool another person.

From:	Craig Rickel <crickel@***.EDU>
Subject:	Magic Questions
Date:	Sat, 13 Dec 1997 04:14:57 -0600

Message no. 16 Okay, had a few choice questions for all you magic theorists out there.

For the following discussion, please keep the following definitions in
mind:
Magician = Someone who spent Priority A in Magic.
Adept = All those other magic users
Mundane = Someone with no magical ability, i.e., helpless
Sorcerer = Someone using the Sorcery skill

1. Can a sorcerer cast a spell without using astral perception?

2. Since magical adepts can't astrally perceive, how do they synchronize
their aura to their target to cast a spell?

3. Do adepts constructed with the Shadowrun Second Edition rules start
with Force Points?
3.a. Does this include Physical Adepts?

4. A mundane has had placed upon him a quickened spell with Detect Spell
-> Mana Barrier. A sorcerer casts a spell at him. What happens when the
Mana Barrier comes up, since the mundane's aura can no longer be seen?

5. Can said quickened spell in question four be targetted instead of the
mundane's aura? If so, what are the effects when the Mana Barrier comes
up?

6. If someone hides their aura using Shielding (i.e., the meat body with
no aura) can spells still be cast at him?

7. How many magicians/shamans does it take to change a lightbulb?

Spider Murphy

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Sat, 13 Dec 1997 14:13:04 +0100

Message no. 17 Craig Rickel said on 4:14/13 Dec 97...

> 1. Can a sorcerer cast a spell without using astral perception?

Yep. This is proven by the Sorcery Adept, who has no access to astral
perception or projection, and can cast spells with the best of them.

> 2. Since magical adepts can't astrally perceive, how do they synchronize
> their aura to their target to cast a spell?

If you use the commonly-used explanation, it's because of a kind of
subconscious form of astral perception that doesn't open the caster's aura
to astral space completely, but just enough to cast the spell.

> 3. Do adepts constructed with the Shadowrun Second Edition rules start
> with Force Points?

Yes, they get the 30 Force Points all magicians do.

> 3.a. Does this include Physical Adepts?

No. Physads get "Force Points" equal to their Magic Rating to buy powers
from. If I were you I'd replace the name for these with something else,
like "Magic Points" or something, to avoid confusion. As a house rule, I
do allow FPs for physads (thank gods MC23 is on nomail! :)

> 4. A mundane has had placed upon him a quickened spell with Detect Spell
> -> Mana Barrier. A sorcerer casts a spell at him. What happens when the
> Mana Barrier comes up, since the mundane's aura can no longer be seen?

Assuming the Detect Spell goes off when the attacking spell is outside the
Mana Barrier, the attacking spell has a TN modifier imposed on it, equal
to one-half the Mana Barrier's Force (SRII page 158).

> 5. Can said quickened spell in question four be targetted instead of the
> mundane's aura? If so, what are the effects when the Mana Barrier comes
> up?

You cannot cast a spell at a spell -- SRII page 148: "A magician in astral
space cannot cast a spell at another spell". Since it's not possible in
astral space, I don't see a reason for it being possible on the physical
plane, either.

> 6. If someone hides their aura using Shielding (i.e., the meat body with
> no aura) can spells still be cast at him?

Shielding? Don't you mean Masking? Shielding gives extra dice to resist a
spell, Masking alters what the magician's aura looks like. However,
Masking doesn't prevent spells from affecting you.

> 7. How many magicians/shamans does it take to change a lightbulb?

Mages: six. On to hold the lightbulb, five others to stand at the five
points of the pentagram around it.

Shamans: as many as will fit into the room and still have room to dance
and chant.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
My mind is numb but my mouth's okay.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----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------

From:	Justin Pinnow <vanyel@*******.NET>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Sat, 13 Dec 1997 08:14:59 -0500

Message no. 18 > From: Craig Rickel <crickel@***.EDU>
> Date: Saturday, December 13, 1997 5:14 AM

> Okay, had a few choice questions for all you magic theorists out there.

> For the following discussion, please keep the following definitions in
> mind:
> Magician = Someone who spent Priority A in Magic.
> Adept = All those other magic users
> Mundane = Someone with no magical ability, i.e., helpless
> Sorcerer = Someone using the Sorcery skill

I assume by the term sorcerer you also require that the person be magically
active. Mundanes can use the sorcery skill, but they can't cast spells.

> 1. Can a sorcerer cast a spell without using astral perception?

Definately. Sorcery Adepts don't get Astral Perception, but they can cast
spells better than most. It is pretty much assumed that, while they can't
just use Astral Perception, they see the Astral Plane during spellcasting
just long enough to synchronize auras with their target.

> 2. Since magical adepts can't astrally perceive, how do they synchronize
> their aura to their target to cast a spell?

Some Adepts can use Astral Perception (Elemental Adepts, for example). See
above for spellcasters.

> 3. Do adepts constructed with the Shadowrun Second Edition rules start
> with Force Points?

Yes, if they can cast spells.

> 3.a. Does this include Physical Adepts?

No, not according to the canon rules, but some folks have a house rule that
allows PhysAds to use Force Points to bond foci, but for nothing else.

> 4. A mundane has had placed upon him a quickened spell with Detect Spell
> -> Mana Barrier. A sorcerer casts a spell at him. What happens when the
> Mana Barrier comes up, since the mundane's aura can no longer be seen?

What you are saying isn't possible according to the rules. Only Anchorings
can have situational triggers that can set off other spells, etc.
Quickenings are always on. Thus, if someone quickened a mana barrier on a
mundane, the poor guy wouldn't ever be able to touch another
person/animal/living being again because of it. Well, at least not until
someone dispelled the quickening.

Also, according to the description of the spell Mana Barrier, you add 1/2
the Force of the Mana Barrier to all spells cast across it. So if a
magician cast a spell at the mundane with a Mana Barrier (Force 6) around
him, he would add +3 to his TN to succeed (1/2 of the Force of the spell).

> 5. Can said quickened spell in question four be targetted instead of the
> mundane's aura? If so, what are the effects when the Mana Barrier comes
> up?

You can't cast a spell at a spell. You can engage a spell in astral combat
(if you have Astral Perception) or you can Dispell it (if you have the
Metamagical Ability of Dispelling), but that's about it.

> 6. If someone hides their aura using Shielding (i.e., the meat body with
> no aura) can spells still be cast at him?

That's not how Shielding works. A magician declares how many of his magic
pool dice he is allocating toward Shielding (just like with Spell Defense).
Then, whenever a spell targets anyone within his line of sight (LOS), he
can choose to use any or all of those dice to defend any target(s) of said
spell (he must divide up the dice to do this...if he allocated 4 dice
toward Shielding, he can only use a total of 4 dice to defend with). Then,
the casting magician must add 1 to his TN for the spell's success test for
every die of Shielding used to protect any given target. Also, that target
gets to roll one extra die to resist the spell for every die of Shielding
used to protect him. For example, if the magician was casting a spell at
mundane A and mundane A had a Body of 3 (average), assuming the spell
target's the Body attribute, the magician's TN would be a 3. But, if
mundane A had 3 Shielding dice used to defend him from the spell, the
magician's TN would increase by 3 to a 6. Also, mundane A would get to
roll three extra dice to resist the spell (so he would roll 6 dice to
resist, instead of the usual 3).

Now, keep in mind that the rules for allocating Shielding/Spell Defense
dice are open to interpretation. Some rule that you have to declare
who/what you are protecting when you allocate dice. Others rule that you
can protect anything within your LOS once you allocate the dice. Remember,
dice allocation is the first step with Shielding/Spell Defense (you declare
that your PC is setting a certain number of dice from his magic pool aside
for Shielding/Spell Defense, as appropriate). Now, depending on how you
interpret the rules for Shielding/Spell Defense, you might also have to
declare who and what are protected by those dice (but you don't have to
divide the dice up just yet). That's the first step. The second step only
occurs if/when a spell targets anyone within your LOS (or any of the
people/objects you chose to protect in step 1, if that's how you interpret
the rules). When this happens, you would divide up the dice between any
valid targets of the spell. Then all the dice rolls are made, etc.

Also remember that whenever you have dice allocated to Shielding/Spell
Defense, you canNOT use those dice for anything else. So, if you have a
magic pool of 5 and allocate 4 dice toward Shielding, you only have 1 die
available to do anything else you can normally do with your magic pool.

> 7. How many magicians/shamans does it take to change a lightbulb?

Magicians: 13. One to change it, and 12 more to discuss how it could have
been done differently.

Shamans: None. All things die - it is simply another spoke in the wheel
of life. One cannot have life without death or vice versa. The lightbulb
is unique in it's place in the universe and can never truly be replaced.

> Spider Murphy

Justin :)

From:	Jeremiah Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Sat, 13 Dec 1997 11:38:42 -0500

Message no. 19 >
> > 4. A mundane has had placed upon him a quickened spell with Detect Spell
> > -> Mana Barrier. A sorcerer casts a spell at him. What happens when the
> > Mana Barrier comes up, since the mundane's aura can no longer be seen?
>
> Assuming the Detect Spell goes off when the attacking spell is outside the
> Mana Barrier, the attacking spell has a TN modifier imposed on it, equal
> to one-half the Mana Barrier's Force (SRII page 158).

The exception would be the Shattershield spell from Awakenings. IMHO, the
barriers created by the various barrier spell are seperate from the spell
itsaelf, and so may be attacked magically. Spells, by weakening the mana
and spell barriers, are effectively attacking it.

From:	Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Sat, 13 Dec 1997 14:33:53 EST

Message no. 20 In a message dated 97-12-13 05:28:49 EST, crickel@***.EDU writes:

> Okay, had a few choice questions for all you magic theorists out there.

Let's hope we have some "choice answers" then...

> For the following discussion, please keep the following definitions in
> mind:
> Magician = Someone who spent Priority A in Magic.
> Adept = All those other magic users
> Mundane = Someone with no magical ability, i.e., helpless
> Sorcerer = Someone using the Sorcery skill

Oh goody, in a moment's writing Mr. Murphy, you've made things clearer than
FASA...ever thought about being a writer???

> 1. Can a sorcerer cast a spell without using astral perception?

Yes.

> 2. Since magical adepts can't astrally perceive, how do they synchronize
> their aura to their target to cast a spell?

They may not consciously do so, but the magical energies that are moving
through them "can perceive". I know it means falling back on that old
"subconscious ruling" thing, but that is the simpler way of things.

> 3. Do adepts constructed with the Shadowrun Second Edition rules start
> with Force Points?

Yes.

> 3.a. Does this include Physical Adepts?

Yes, but it's fairly unclear as to why and many people rule that Pads don't
get the force points for bonding (which is kind of strange IMHO).

> 4. A mundane has had placed upon him a quickened spell with Detect Spell
> -> Mana Barrier. A sorcerer casts a spell at him. What happens when the
> Mana Barrier comes up, since the mundane's aura can no longer be seen?

It can be seen, just with visibility modifiers (the +1 per two points of force
thing).

> 5. Can said quickened spell in question four be targetted instead of the
> mundane's aura? If so, what are the effects when the Mana Barrier comes
> up?

It could be done as you are saying, but then you are using "Tattoo-like"
magic, which is more advanced and quite cool. Now as for what happens? No,
the mundane cannot perceive the astral. Actually, it would work like an Adept
or a Physical Adept without Astral Perception but with a power. They are
suddenly a target in the astral, albeit the Mana Barrier is still there to
lend some help.

> 6. If someone hides their aura using Shielding (i.e., the meat body with
> no aura) can spells still be cast at him?

Yes, again with modifiers to do so as per the rules...

> 7. How many magicians/shamans does it take to change a lightbulb?

Shamans would call up a spirit to help of course...Hermetic Magicians would
likely go for Magic Fingers or Use (Light Bulb) spells, come to think of it so
would Raccoon types....sigh....yet another mystery never to be solved...

_K

From:	Craig Rickel <crickel@***.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Sat, 13 Dec 1997 19:58:42 -0600

Message no. 21 Justin Pinnow wrote:

> > 1. Can a sorcerer cast a spell without using astral perception?
>
> Definately. Sorcery Adepts don't get Astral Perception, but they can cast
> spells better than most. It is pretty much assumed that, while they can't
> just use Astral Perception, they see the Astral Plane during spellcasting
> just long enough to synchronize auras with their target.

Does that mean that as I cast a spell on someone, I can roll to sense their
aura, since I can obviously see it at that point?

Or alternatively, make a Hypersenses spell, that gives me Astral perception?

> > 4. A mundane has had placed upon him a quickened spell with Detect Spell
> <Snip>
> someone dispelled the quickening.

My apologies. I've never, in all of my shadowrunning experience, actually -had-
a mage that was initiate (my GMs are generally really tough on trying to
initiate), so I never had much practice with all this. Naturally, I screwed up.
I meant Anchoring in the first place.

> Also, according to the description of the spell Mana Barrier, you add 1/2
> the Force of the Mana Barrier to all spells cast across it. So if a
> magician cast a spell at the mundane with a Mana Barrier (Force 6) around
> him, he would add +3 to his TN to succeed (1/2 of the Force of the spell).

So Mana Barriers don't block astral LOS? Do Hermetic Circles/Medicene Lodges?
Does anything, other than living matter?

If you were wearing full body Chia-Armor, made from living plants, would the
mage be able to target you, or would he have to kill the plants, first?

I have a Detect Spell spell anchored to me. When a spell is cast targetting me,
it activates another spell, Aura Shift on me, that is designed to
phase-shift(or somesuch magical anology) my aura. Now, since I come under the
effect of the spell, my aura changes. The spell targetting me is no longer
synchronized to me. What happens to the origonal spell attacking me?

> > 5. Can said quickened spell in question four be targetted instead of the
> > mundane's aura? If so, what are the effects when the Mana Barrier comes
> > up?
>
> You can't cast a spell at a spell. You can engage a spell in astral combat
> (if you have Astral Perception) or you can Dispell it (if you have the
> Metamagical Ability of Dispelling), but that's about it.
>
> > 6. If someone hides their aura using Shielding (i.e., the meat body with
> > no aura) can spells still be cast at him?
>
> That's not how Shielding works. A magician declares how many of his magic

> <Ker-SNIPity>

> available to do anything else you can normally do with your magic pool.

Screwed up here, too. Meant Masking. My bad, sorry for confusing you.

So, if someone uses Masking to hide their aura completely, can spells still be
cast at him? If so.. How? Not in game mechanics terms, in theory terms.

From:	Craig Rickel <crickel@***.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Sat, 13 Dec 1997 20:00:59 -0600

Message no. 22 Ereskanti wrote:

> In a message dated 97-12-13 05:28:49 EST, crickel@***.EDU writes:
>
> > For the following discussion, please keep the following definitions in
> > mind:
> > Magician = Someone who spent Priority A in Magic.
> > Adept = All those other magic users
> > Mundane = Someone with no magical ability, i.e., helpless
> > Sorcerer = Someone using the Sorcery skill
>
> Oh goody, in a moment's writing Mr. Murphy, you've made things clearer than
> FASA...ever thought about being a writer???

Since there's no :) or ;) there, I assume you're serious. As a matter of fact,
yes. I just have trouble getting an idea and then writing it inbetween classes.
And if you're not being serious.. Well, ;) to you! :)

Spider Murphy

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Sun, 14 Dec 1997 13:40:21 +0100

Message no. 23 Craig Rickel said on 19:58/13 Dec 97...

> So Mana Barriers don't block astral LOS?

It says in the spell description that it adds one-half its rating to the
TN for spells cast across it, and it functions as an astral barrier,
meaning you have to fight it in order to get through yourself.

> Do Hermetic Circles/Medicene Lodges?

These are astral barriers (a hermetic circle only when it's in use, BTW)
when it comes to moving across thm, but they work slightly different for
spells. SRII page 131 explains that any spel cast within a hermetic circle
or medicine lodge gets a +1 per 2 Force of the circle/lodge. Only the mage
who inscribed the circle, or shamans of the lodge's totem, don't get this
modifier.

> Does anything, other than living matter?

Anything you can't see through on the physical plane also blocks LOS on
the astral plane. A wall is just as opaque when you're viewing it with
astral perception as when you're using your eyes, for example.

> If you were wearing full body Chia-Armor, made from living plants, would the
> mage be able to target you, or would he have to kill the plants, first?

This is a very fuzzy area... IMHO the plants are shielding your aura, so
they'd have to go first. However it's mostly up to your own interpretation
of how auras "work."

> I have a Detect Spell spell anchored to me. When a spell is cast
> targetting me, it activates another spell, Aura Shift on me, that is
> designed to phase-shift(or somesuch magical anology) my aura. Now, since
> I come under the effect of the spell, my aura changes. The spell
> targetting me is no longer synchronized to me. What happens to the
> origonal spell attacking me?

This question assumes that an "aura shift" spell can work in SR, which
IMHO is not the case. Masking can change what your aura appears like, but
it doesn't make you immune to spells cast at you, or even harder to hit.
Auras can't be disguised (see SRII page 145), which means your spell
probably can't exist.

> So, if someone uses Masking to hide their aura completely, can spells still be
> cast at him? If so.. How? Not in game mechanics terms, in theory terms.

You can use Masking to make your aura look like that of a normal
(non-initiated) magician or of a mundane, but you can't hide it completely
AFAIK.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
My mind is numb but my mouth's okay.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----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------

From:	Mon goose <landsquid@*******.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Sun, 14 Dec 1997 07:08:10 PST

Message no. 24 >Okay, had a few choice questions for all you magic theorists out there.
>
>For the following discussion, please keep the following definitions in
>mind:
>Magician = Someone who spent Priority A in Magic.
>Adept = All those other magic users
>Mundane = Someone with no magical ability, i.e., helpless
>Sorcerer = Someone using the Sorcery skill
>
>1. Can a sorcerer cast a spell without using astral perception?
>
Yes, certainly. Sorcery adepts can ONLY cast spells, and do not get
astral perception. The spellcasting procedure et all do not mention a
need for perception- some other magical procedures do (a fair amount of
metamagic, for example)

>2. Since magical adepts can't astrally perceive, how do they
synchronize their aura to their target to cast a spell?

Through the spellcasting procedure. Some adepts can perceitve, BTW.
The spellcasting procedure creates a "link" that is normally only
noticed during the procedure of ritual sorcery (p. 136, noticing the
sending). In the use of normal spellcasting, it exists only ontill the
spell reaches it's target. Sorcery used this way allows some
manipulation of gross astral energy without astral perception (as does
sommuning). Metamagic, which requires finer manipulation, often does
require active astral perception.
>
>3. Do adepts constructed with the Shadowrun Second Edition rules start
>with Force Points?

Yes. 30 like everone else.

>3.a. Does this include Physical Adepts?
>
Not according to the Companion. Screw that - give them 30 FP for
bonding Foci only. (they could use spelllocks with the spellcasting
edge, for example, or weapon foci).

<half serious>Since adepts normally can only spend force equal to thier
Magic rating, lett them trade beack any they have left- an adpet with no
'wares who buys 6MP worth of abilities and no foci spends 6 force,
trades back 24 force for 12 build points. This keeps them on par with
other magic types and Samurai.</half serious>

Actually, according to my math, theres some validity to the above idea.

>4. A mundane has had placed upon him a quickened spell with Detect
Spell -> Mana Barrier. A sorcerer casts a spell at him. What happens
when the Mana Barrier comes up, since the mundane's aura can no longer
be seen?

You can't quicken spells that way- what you want is an anchor with an
activation link (and most likely 2 duration links, sot the spells can
sustain themaselves, and maybe a deactivation link for each spell)

Additionally, Spells CAN be cast through a Mana barriers (and other
astral barriers)- they don't block LOS. Add half the barriers rating to
the TN of the spell, and the spell must also beat the Barrier in astral
combat to get past it.

>5. Can said quickened spell in question four be targetted instead of
the mundane's aura? If so, what are the effects when the Mana Barrier
comes up?
>
The spell would still have to get inside the detect magic radius, right,
so the barrier goes up, right? See above answer for efect.

Spells can't be cast at spells. This also treads close to "GTQ".

>6. If someone hides their aura using Shielding (i.e., the meat body
with no aura) can spells still be cast at him?

HUH? Shielding has specific effect, whic are described.
Masking (was that the idea) does not REMOVE your aura- it changes the
informationgained fro veiwing it. Even inaniment objects have visible,
targetable, aura's.

>
>7. How many magicians/shamans does it take to change a lightbulb?

One, if she has the right spell and LOS or a ritual sample of the bulb.
But you can't "change to goo" anymore.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

From:	Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Sun, 14 Dec 1997 10:47:11 EST

Message no. 25 In a message dated 97-12-14 10:37:00 EST, landsquid@*******.COM writes:

>
> >3.a. Does this include Physical Adepts?
> >
> Not according to the Companion. Screw that - give them 30 FP for
> bonding Foci only. (they could use spelllocks with the spellcasting
> edge, for example, or weapon foci).
>
IIRC, the Physical Adept is at a lower point cost than a "Magical Adept" in
the SR Comp....they only get their magic attribute in bonding points.
-K

From:	Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Sun, 14 Dec 1997 10:43:24 EST

Message no. 26 In a message dated 97-12-14 08:39:41 EST, gurth@******.NL writes:

> > I have a Detect Spell spell anchored to me. When a spell is cast
> > targetting me, it activates another spell, Aura Shift on me, that is
> > designed to phase-shift(or somesuch magical anology) my aura. Now, since
> > I come under the effect of the spell, my aura changes. The spell
> > targetting me is no longer synchronized to me. What happens to the
> > origonal spell attacking me?
>
> This question assumes that an "aura shift" spell can work in SR, which
> IMHO is not the case. Masking can change what your aura appears like, but
> it doesn't make you immune to spells cast at you, or even harder to hit.
> Auras can't be disguised (see SRII page 145), which means your spell
> probably can't exist.

Oh Gurth, come on, it could to but using yet another analogy..."as above, so
below", as the Aura Changes, the person or at least personality may become
subject to change as well. If the Aura "shifts" to something of a sick person
for example, the person will at least "feel like" they are getting ill....if
the aura shift is that of a wounded person, hey, who knows....

> > So, if someone uses Masking to hide their aura completely, can spells
> still be
> > cast at him? If so.. How? Not in game mechanics terms, in theory terms.
>
> You can use Masking to make your aura look like that of a normal
> (non-initiated) magician or of a mundane, but you can't hide it completely
> AFAIK.

Gurth is technically correct, however, you could alter the Masking properties
to evade the spell. Basically hide the aura in the 'background clutter" of a
given region. Target numbers would vary, but this could be quite effective.
If the spell is say "Single Person" and you are suddenly "part of a
group/crowd", the spell will fail based upon mechanics of the situation. If
it's "Person Specific", you could make your aura into something/someone
elses....("why thank you Gurth for letting me look like you..."). Better yet,
you could shift the aura to something entirely different...go from a "living
target" to the aura of a "dead one" (like a television set). Suddenly Mana
Spells won't work any longer.

Yes, we've played with "Chameleon Auras" here in the past. Great Game
Mechanics theory...especially when combined with a Quest of True Aura and a
guy whose feeling vengefull ("Your Honor...I am a licensed magician with Lone
Star and the Seattle Metroplex Investigations Division....yes sir, I conclude
that it is the aura of -that- man I found on the body of the victim...")

-K

From:	Ashlocke <woneal@*******.NET>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Sun, 14 Dec 1997 11:14:57 -0005

Message no. 27 On 13 Dec 97 at 4:14, Craig Rickel wrote:

> Okay, had a few choice questions for all you magic theorists out there.
>
> For the following discussion, please keep the following definitions in
> mind: Magician = Someone who spent Priority A in Magic. Adept = All those
> other magic users Mundane = Someone with no magical ability, i.e.,
> helpless Sorcerer = Someone using the Sorcery skill
>
> 1. Can a sorcerer cast a spell without using astral perception?
Going strictly by the rules.. yes, that's how it is supposed to work.
But...

>
> 2. Since magical adepts can't astrally perceive, how do they synchronize
> their aura to their target to cast a spell?
.... that then raises this question. So far as I know there hasn't been
an official answer from FASA.

>
> 3. Do adepts constructed with the Shadowrun Second Edition rules start
> with Force Points? 3.a. Does this include Physical Adepts?
This is a point of much arguing. One person says one thing, another says
something else. Most people, regards of which way they argue have one
point or another. In other words no easy answer. Here's how I handle it
for what it's worth. I only allow those with spell casting ability
(sorcerer adepts, magicians, physmages, etc.) the 30 free force points (I
generally use the BP system). I will allow conjuring adepts, astral
adepts (not that anyone has ever played one) and physical adepts to
purchase Force points at creation for bonding foci or initiation if they
wish. Few had done so and so far it hasn't been a problem.

>
> 4. A mundane has had placed upon him a quickened spell with Detect Spell
> -> Mana Barrier. A sorcerer casts a spell at him. What happens when the
> Mana Barrier comes up, since the mundane's aura can no longer be seen?

I assume you mean anchoring since you can't quicken a spell linked to
another spell (at least not officially). Presumbably the spell would
either hit the barrier and go into astral combat against it. If it wins
it still hits the target, probably with reduced effect.

>
> 5. Can said quickened spell in question four be targetted instead of the
> mundane's aura? If so, what are the effects when the Mana Barrier comes
> up?
No, you can't target a spell with another spell. You could attack it
astrally if the barrier was up. Also, the barrier itself can be attacked
with spells like shattershield (Steve I think it was explained this a bit,
there's a difference between the spell and the spell effect.)

>
> 6. If someone hides their aura using Shielding (i.e., the meat body with
> no aura) can spells still be cast at him?
Gaaahhhhh.... so far as I know, no GM would allow this (and I assume you
mean masking, not shielding). As I understand it, Masking can alter the
aura in order to hide certain facts (like the fact that you're an
initiate, or have magical ability, or the fact that you are very angry,
etc.) But it can't hide the whole aura, only masking certain elements.

>
> 7. How many magicians/shamans does it take to change a lightbulb?
Magicians don't change lightbulbs, that's what Light spells are for. ; )
--

Ashlocke

"... for this man can say it happened, cause this child has been
condemned. And I'm the only witness to the nature of my crime.
Don't damn me." -- G'N'R

From:	Ashlocke <woneal@*******.NET>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Sun, 14 Dec 1997 11:14:57 -0005

Message no. 28 On 13 Dec 97 at 19:58, Craig Rickel wrote:

> Justin Pinnow wrote:
>
> > > 1. Can a sorcerer cast a spell without using astral perception?
> >
> > Definately. Sorcery Adepts don't get Astral Perception, but they can cast
> > spells better than most. It is pretty much assumed that, while they can't
> > just use Astral Perception, they see the Astral Plane during spellcasting
> > just long enough to synchronize auras with their target.
>
> Does that mean that as I cast a spell on someone, I can roll to sense
> their aura, since I can obviously see it at that point?

No... cause that's trying to deal with a loophole in the game and that's
annoying. Thinks of it as a limited form of astral perception. Just
enough to synchronize the spell, but not anything else. Sort of like
seeing something out of focus, you know it's there and where it is, even
if you can't tell exactly what it is.
Course this then begs the question, can someone who can see the aura
"clearly" with full on astral perception reduce the target number because
they have a clearer view? Maybe that's exaclty what happens with
Centering.

>
> Or alternatively, make a Hypersenses spell, that gives me Astral
> perception?
>
I think this is probably beyond what spells can do. At least in my own
game I would rule it so. Purely on grounds of game balance.

> > > 4. A mundane has had placed upon him a quickened spell with Detect Spell
> > <Snip>
> > someone dispelled the quickening.
>
> My apologies. I've never, in all of my shadowrunning experience, actually
> -had- a mage that was initiate (my GMs are generally really tough on
> trying to initiate), so I never had much practice with all this.
> Naturally, I screwed up. I meant Anchoring in the first place.

I kinda figured
>
> > Also, according to the description of the spell Mana Barrier, you add 1/2
> > the Force of the Mana Barrier to all spells cast across it. So if a
> > magician cast a spell at the mundane with a Mana Barrier (Force 6) around
> > him, he would add +3 to his TN to succeed (1/2 of the Force of the spell).

Yup, that's it.
>
> So Mana Barriers don't block astral LOS? Do Hermetic Circles/Medicene
> Lodges? Does anything, other than living matter?

Nope, not so far as I am aware. Wards, barriers, etc aren't opaque,
they're "cloudy", that its they obscure LOS but don't totatly block it.
Course at a certain point the TN penalties get so high they might as well
be opaque.

>
> If you were wearing full body Chia-Armor, made from living plants, would
> the mage be able to target you, or would he have to kill the plants,
> first?

Gaaaaaahhhh! I thought of this one once. Here's a few points to ponder,
if it covers you totally, how do you see out? Second, what happens the
first time you get caught in the AOE of a fireball? Okay, now a quick
rulling. You aura bleeds through because the two are so close. The
effect is you get some protection (kinda like a barrier spell) from the
plant armor. GM figures out what it is and add it to the TN for magic to
affect you.

>
> I have a Detect Spell spell anchored to me. When a spell is cast
> targetting me, it activates another spell, Aura Shift on me, that is
> designed to phase-shift(or somesuch magical anology) my aura. Now, since
> I come under the effect of the spell, my aura changes. The spell
> targetting me is no longer synchronized to me. What happens to the
> origonal spell attacking me?

Again, I'd say such a spell is beyond the limits of what spells can do.
Closest you could come would be something like a personal version of
Astral Static, which simply gives the attacker a TN penalty to affect you.

> > > 6. If someone hides their aura using Shielding (i.e., the meat body with
> > > no aura) can spells still be cast at him?
> >
> > That's not how Shielding works. A magician declares how many of his magic
>
> > <Ker-SNIPity>
>
> > available to do anything else you can normally do with your magic pool.
>
> Screwed up here, too. Meant Masking. My bad, sorry for confusing you.
>
> So, if someone uses Masking to hide their aura completely, can spells
> still be cast at him? If so.. How? Not in game mechanics terms, in theory
> terms.

As I understand masking, it doesn't hide the aura completely, nor would I
allow it to in any game I GMed. What it does do is mask certain elements
of the aura. Think of the aura as a blue print for who and what you are.
Different elements to the aura can be "read" thus revealing info about
you. Initiates learn to hide small parts of their aura, thus enabling
them to hide certain info about themselves. The better the intiate the
better they are at hiding things.

--

Ashlocke

"... for this man can say it happened, cause this child has been
condemned. And I'm the only witness to the nature of my crime.
Don't damn me." -- G'N'R

From:	Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Sun, 14 Dec 1997 12:33:38 EST

Message no. 29 In a message dated 97-12-14 11:38:32 EST, woneal@*******.NET writes:

> > Or alternatively, make a Hypersenses spell, that gives me Astral
> > perception?
> >
> I think this is probably beyond what spells can do. At least in my
> own
> game I would rule it so. Purely on grounds of game balance.
>
I have to get into this....sorry...."Purely on grounds of game
balance."???????

How about, "making someone forever live with their handicap/restriction and
therefore not allowing them to grow beyond it. Just for the record, and
though most people will say that module-sourced spells are not canon, it would
strike me as Odd that FASA would put such a thing into the game with their
printed logo on it and their ability to copyright such....but I
digress...there is a spell called "Sight" in a module, I believe it's in
either Super Tuesday (I'm probably wrong, I can't place the module) which
allows for the caster (who is blind) to have the abilities of "Normal
Sight"...completely unaugmented. It was created by a Ghoul magician to
overcome his restriction.

Why couldn't a Sorceror Adept come up with an "Astral Sight" spell. the
"Sight" spell mentioned above has a "Light" drain btw, IIRC.
"Astral Sight"
would be far more complex, and could readily be done with a "+3 Drain
Category" (for Extreme Complexity) and all it would do is grant "unaugmented
Astral Sight".

You could do LOTS beyond that.

Put it on an anchoring effect (say a pair of glasses or a monacle), then you
could do spells like "Nightvision" (Low Light) "Thermal Sight"
(Thermographic)
"Starsight" (Ultraviolet) "Acuity" (Optic Magnification...level it to
work
just like the cyber implant so that a +1 is Moderate, +2 is Serious, +3 is
Deadly (which is a bit much IMHO), "X-Ray" (which is mentioned in the book).

Come on, time to let an obstacle be a challenge, not a chain.
-K

From:	Ashlocke <woneal@*******.NET>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Sun, 14 Dec 1997 13:15:49 -0005

Message no. 30 On 14 Dec 97 at 12:33, Ereskanti wrote:

> In a message dated 97-12-14 11:38:32 EST, woneal@*******.NET writes:
>
> > > Or alternatively, make a Hypersenses spell, that gives me Astral
> > > perception?
> > >
> > I think this is probably beyond what spells can do. At least in my
> > own
> > game I would rule it so. Purely on grounds of game balance.
> >
> I have to get into this....sorry...."Purely on grounds of game
> balance."???????

Get into what? I was just a personal opinion, no need to get bent. And
yes, on grounds of game balance. Astral Perception is restricted to very
few individuals throughout the game, and it's become a basic "fact" of the
SR "universe". If you allow a spell to grant Astral Perception, that
spell can be cast on anyone. Suddenly anyone can have Astral Perception
and a basic "fact" of the game "universe" has been changed. Suddenly
all
those corp guards are going to have astral sight, and the whole face of
magical security will change. And that's just one possible effect. And
that's why I said I wouldn't allow it on "grounds of game balance" It
would change my campaign too much. In your campaign, do what the frag you
want.

>
> How about, "making someone forever live with their handicap/restriction
> and therefore not allowing them to grow beyond it. Just for the record,

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about?

> and though most people will say that module-sourced spells are not canon,
> it would strike me as Odd that FASA would put such a thing into the game
> with their printed logo on it and their ability to copyright such....but

I allow stuff from canned adventures on a case by case basis, simply
because the writing isn't consistent. One author may have ideas that fit
perfectly with my own campaign, while another may do something that would
wreck my campaign... doesn't mean the author is a bad writer, just that
they have ideas that don't work for me.

> I digress...there is a spell called "Sight" in a module, I believe it's
> in either Super Tuesday (I'm probably wrong, I can't place the module)
> which allows for the caster (who is blind) to have the abilities of
> "Normal Sight"...completely unaugmented. It was created by a Ghoul
> magician to overcome his restriction.

There are a couple of such spells. There's a variant of the clairvoyance
spell in Elven Fire that grants sight to a blind woman IIRC. However,
granting normal sight is quite different from granting astral perception
for a number of reasons.

>
> Why couldn't a Sorceror Adept come up with an "Astral Sight" spell. the
> "Sight" spell mentioned above has a "Light" drain btw, IIRC.
"Astral
> Sight" would be far more complex, and could readily be done with a "+3
> Drain Category" (for Extreme Complexity) and all it would do is grant
> "unaugmented Astral Sight".

For starters, as I said above, because it frags with game balance.
Second, even if you ignore that issue, there's more to it. How exactly
does the spell work? What side effects does it have? Do you have a +2 TN
for sustaining the spell while using it? Does it open you to astral
attack while using it? Does the spell allow you to see directly, or does
it simply provide you with specific information remotely (i.e. Detect
<object>, Detect Magic, etc.)? I might allow a spell that gave you astral
info, there's a basis for that (Detect Magic, Magic Sense, Detect Foci,
etc.). But not a spell that allowed you to side step a basic limit of the
character you chose at creation. If you want a character with astral
perception, play one that has it. Trying to get around such a basic
limitation of a character could be considered munchkin by some.

>
> You could do LOTS beyond that.

Oh I'm sure you could, *if* the GM allowed it. We all could, and that's
why it part of a GM's job to decide what to allow.

>
> Put it on an anchoring effect (say a pair of glasses or a monocle), then
> you could do spells like "Nightvision" (Low Light) "Thermal
Sight"
> (Thermographic) "Starsight" (Ultraviolet) "Acuity" (Optic
> Magnification...level it to work just like the cyber implant so that a +1
> is Moderate, +2 is Serious, +3 is Deadly (which is a bit much IMHO),
> "X-Ray" (which is mentioned in the book).

Those are all fine... none of them allow astral perception, which was the
original point. In fact, that list of ideas are all things I'd allow, all
good ideas and a few of which I've seen done.

>
> Come on, time to let an obstacle be a challenge, not a chain.

Obstacles are one thing... limitations on ability are another.
--

Ashlocke

"... for this man can say it happened, cause this child has been
condemned. And I'm the only witness to the nature of my crime.
Don't damn me." -- G'N'R

From:	William Gallas <wgallas@*****.FR>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Mon, 15 Dec 1997 10:13:16 +0100

Message no. 31 >1. Can a sorcerer cast a spell without using astral perception?

Yep. They say in SR2 that you synchronize your spell with the aura of the
target but then explain (perhaps this part is in the grimmy) that you don't
really use use astral perception. I think this was stated because of adepts
and to state that you can't be attacked from astral plane when you cast a
spell.

>2. Since magical adepts can't astrally perceive, how do they synchronize
>their aura to their target to cast a spell?

Yes. Perhaps you could state that the use of this semi-astral perception is
something uncoscious which accompanies your spellcasting ability. This
isn't really astral perception because I think you can't sustain this
perception and you only perceive a general setting of the aura, which is a
low level assenssing.

>3. Do adepts constructed with the Shadowrun Second Edition rules start
>with Force Points?
>3.a. Does this include Physical Adepts?

Not stated in SR2. It's up to you to decide if they are or not. If you give
them these points, they could be able to initiate or bound foci as if it
were karma which makes them a bit more edgy. If you think they sufficiently
powerful, don't give 'em these points.

>4. A mundane has had placed upon him a quickened spell with Detect Spell
>-> Mana Barrier. A sorcerer casts a spell at him. What happens when the
>Mana Barrier comes up, since the mundane's aura can no longer be seen?
>
>5. Can said quickened spell in question four be targetted instead of the
>mundane's aura? If so, what are the effects when the Mana Barrier comes
>up?

I think you're thinking about anchoring instead of quickening. Mana barrier
doesn't break your LOS, it just make it more difficult to affect the
target. So, your LOS won't be broken but you will get the target modifier
from the mana barrier. In the case of a spell which breaks LOS like a wall
creation or a shadow spell, the spell will still target the target because
it was already synchronized.

>6. If someone hides their aura using Shielding (i.e., the meat body with
>no aura) can spells still be cast at him?

Again, I think you mean masking instead of shielding. I don't think you
totally hide your aura. IMO you can alter it and not hide it (i.e.
Appearing as mundane for exemple). If you accept such hidding of the aura,
I would still allow spells to be targeted at you. The explanation could be
that when you synchronize the spell with the aura, it's with the use of
normal perception too (the reason why you get the perception modifiers from
obscurity) and you're still visible. If the target is invisible, state that
the spell makes a part of his aura visible... A sufficient part for you to
cast him a spell.

Cobra.

E-mail adress : wgallas@*****.fr
Quote : "You are who you know"

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Mon, 15 Dec 1997 12:58:53 +0100

Message no. 32 Mon goose said on 7:08/14 Dec 97...

> <half serious>Since adepts normally can only spend force equal to thier
> Magic rating, lett them trade beack any they have left- an adpet with no
> 'wares who buys 6MP worth of abilities and no foci spends 6 force,
> trades back 24 force for 12 build points. This keeps them on par with
> other magic types and Samurai.</half serious>
>
> Actually, according to my math, theres some validity to the above idea.

It makes sense if you allow them to mix systems and buy abilities from
Force Points rather than their Magic Rating. I strictly separate the two
-- physads use what I call Magic Points to buy powers, and Force Points
(which they get in my game) for buying foci.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
My mind is numb but my mouth's okay.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----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------

From:	AirWisp <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Mon, 15 Dec 1997 12:17:58 EST

Message no. 33 In a message dated 97-12-14 13:27:15 EST, you write:

> Get into what? I was just a personal opinion, no need to get bent. And
> yes, on grounds of game balance. Astral Perception is restricted to very
> few individuals throughout the game, and it's become a basic "fact" of the
> SR "universe". If you allow a spell to grant Astral Perception, that
> spell can be cast on anyone. Suddenly anyone can have Astral Perception
> and a basic "fact" of the game "universe" has been changed.
Suddenly all
> those corp guards are going to have astral sight, and the whole face of
> magical security will change. And that's just one possible effect. And
> that's why I said I wouldn't allow it on "grounds of game balance" It
> would change my campaign too much. In your campaign, do what the frag you
> want.
>
Sounds to me that a spell which grants someone astral sight would be something
that everyone would want ... why? Because it means that the corp does not
need to pay through the nose for a mage to assense something when all they
have to do is train somebody in psychometry and then pay them to be a astral
watch dog ... as for game balance ... if you have a problem with the spell
then perhaps you should also get rid of the mage ability to astrally perceive
... the spell is within the guidleines of the spell creation ...

Mike (and yes, I have seen far worse spells than this, and they have also been
within the spell creation guidelines too)

From:	Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Mon, 15 Dec 1997 13:18:37 EST

Message no. 34 In a message dated 97-12-14 14:06:10 EST, woneal@*******.NET writes:

> For starters, as I said above, because it frags with game balance.
> Second, even if you ignore that issue, there's more to it. How exactly
> does the spell work? What side effects does it have? Do you have a +2 TN
> for sustaining the spell while using it? Does it open you to astral
> attack while using it? Does the spell allow you to see directly, or does
> it simply provide you with specific information remotely (i.e. Detect
> <object>, Detect Magic, etc.)? I might allow a spell that gave you astral

Answer to all of those questions above, yes....+2 modifier for sustaining (as
it is a sustained spell), yes it can be grounded through, yes it could be
designed as an Anchoring/Quickening (which can still be grounded
through)....it doesn't grant Astral Projection, just Astral Perception...the
information is like putting a "Lens" allowing you to "focus" upon the
Astral
directly. Please note, I did NOT say access to Metaplanar sight...

> info, there's a basis for that (Detect Magic, Magic Sense, Detect Foci,
> etc.). But not a spell that allowed you to side step a basic limit of the
> character you chose at creation. If you want a character with astral
> perception, play one that has it. Trying to get around such a basic
> limitation of a character could be considered munchkin by some.

Actually, it isn't unless you decide to "PC" (as in politically correct) away
a limitation and a handicap and a restriction. Character's try and develop
beyond what they have otherwise there is no such thing as growth and character
development. GM's who do not even give solid consideration are doing their
players a severe injustice.

> > You could do LOTS beyond that.
>
> Oh I'm sure you could, *if* the GM allowed it. We all could, and
> that's
> why it part of a GM's job to decide what to allow.

No argument there, but it is also -NOT- the GM's job to restrict a character's
options to the point of utter loss. Face certain facts, if a Sorceror Adept
-REALLY- wants to get the benefits from Initiation, as an example (as in
Dispelling, Quickening, Anchoring, etcetera), then s/he is going to -NEED- to
have astral sight access in some form.

> > Put it on an anchoring effect (say a pair of glasses or a monocle), then
> > you could do spells like "Nightvision" (Low Light) "Thermal
Sight"
> > (Thermographic) "Starsight" (Ultraviolet) "Acuity" (Optic
> > Magnification...level it to work just like the cyber implant so that a +1
> > is Moderate, +2 is Serious, +3 is Deadly (which is a bit much IMHO),
> > "X-Ray" (which is mentioned in the book).
>
> Those are all fine... none of them allow astral perception, which
> was the
> original point. In fact, that list of ideas are all things I'd allow, all
> good ideas and a few of which I've seen done.

Yes, but "X-Ray" vision isn't clairvoyance, which is "sight beyond
LOS", it's
the ability to see through a solid, otherwise opaque, substance. X'Ray is
equally difficult as Astral Perception, if not in some fashions more so.

> > Come on, time to let an obstacle be a challenge, not a chain.
>
> Obstacles are one thing... limitations on ability are another.

Which is my statement earlier exactly...you are seperating the two far to
much. It won't be nearly as munchkin as you might believe and would lend
itself for interesting side effects.

Let the imagination of the players cut loose a bit, and while you are at
it....do so yourself.

-K (yes, this may be a rant or flame war initiation, but it is honest and
upfront...more than most would give credit)

From:	Mon goose <landsquid@*******.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Mon, 15 Dec 1997 10:57:02 PST

Message no. 35 >> <half serious>Since adepts normally can only spend force equal to
thier Magic rating, lett them trade beack any they have left- an adpet
with no 'wares who buys 6MP worth of abilities and no foci spends 6
force, trades back 24 force for 12 build points. This keeps them on par
with other magic types and Samurai.</half serious>
>>
>> Actually, according to my math, theres some validity to the above
idea.
>
>It makes sense if you allow them to mix systems and buy abilities from
Force Points rather than their Magic Rating. I strictly separate the
two-- physads use what I call Magic Points to buy powers, and Force
Points (which they get in my game) for buying foci.
>Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html -

Which, of course, is as it has always been. Not overly bad- point built
adepts get some useful forcepoints.
;]
Physad Character generation always anoyed me because you payed the same
priority as a spell using adept, and paid for the force points (as part
of resources, and now part of the 15 point adept cost), but got little
or no use for them. Worse, If you spent lots of money and got some
cyber, your magic got that much worse, yet cost no less.

Yeah, I kow all about the nature of magic, the tragic trade off and all,
but <jay sherman> "it stinks" </jay sherman>. I don't think physads
should cost 15 points under the point system- 5 is more like it, at
leastmy my "spreadsheat", since any money spent on cyber knocks down
magic A LOT. (more then any other magic user, IMO). The wierd cludge i
came up with above WAS only half serious, but adresses those issues.
It even allows for focus use and possibly initiation at prices that make
some sense. By reducing the cost slightly for adepts with LESS than 6
magic points, it also remove some of the "double whammy" cost of adepts
with implants. In fact, a physical adept with NO magic would cost- Zero
points! But its not by any means what I think was intended under those
rules,and could be abused.

Mongoose / Technological progress is like an ax in the hands
of a psychotic - Einstein

get sucked into -The Vortex- Chicago's shadowland BBS
http://www.concentric.net/~evamarie/srmain.htm

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

From:	"Leszek Karlik, aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Mon, 15 Dec 1997 20:15:47 +0000

Message no. 36 On 15 Dec 97, Ereskanti disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
writing:

<SNIP>
> a "Lens" allowing you to "focus" upon the Astral directly.
Please
> note, I did NOT say access to Metaplanar sight...

Of course you didn't. There's no such a thing as Metaplanar sight.
You can only project to metaplanes, you can't see them without doing
so.

<snip>

> Actually, it isn't unless you decide to "PC" (as in politically
> correct) away a limitation and a handicap and a restriction.
> Character's try and develop beyond what they have otherwise there is
> no such thing as growth and character development. GM's who do not
> even give solid consideration are doing their players a severe
> injustice.

Actually, it's not a problem of PC. It's a problem of world
continuity. A spell like Astral Sight WOULD be mentioned in the
novels, sourcebooks etc. For example in Corp Sec.

Oh well, nobody prohibits you from doing an Astral Sight spell. Or
introducing Battle Dress, PGMPs and Fusion+ power. (Waitaminute,
that's Traveller, not Shadowrun)

<snip>

> No argument there, but it is also -NOT- the GM's job to restrict a
> character's options to the point of utter loss. Face certain facts,
> if a Sorceror Adept -REALLY- wants to get the benefits from
> Initiation, as an example (as in Dispelling, Quickening, Anchoring,
> etcetera), then s/he is going to -NEED- to have astral sight access
> in some form.

Well, IMC I use slightly modified gradual initation rules (two powers
per grade), and adepts have astral sight available to them as a
metamagic power. And still NO Astral Sight for mundanes. See? The
world won't break up.

<snip>
> Yes, but "X-Ray" vision isn't clairvoyance, which is "sight beyond
> LOS", it's the ability to see through a solid, otherwise opaque,
> substance. X'Ray is equally difficult as Astral Perception, if not
> in some fashions more so.

Well, not really. Are there MECHANICAL devices allowing Astral Sight?
No? Thought so.

<snip>
> > Obstacles are one thing... limitations on ability are another.
>
> Which is my statement earlier exactly...you are seperating the two
> far to much. It won't be nearly as munchkin as you might believe
> and would lend itself for interesting side effects.

Yes. Interesting side effects, as changing the whole Corp Security
issue etc.

Well, Power Armor is not nearly as munchkin as one might believe and
lends itself for intersenting side effects, too. LET'S 'AVE SOME!

<sheepish grin>

> Let the imagination of the players cut loose a bit, and while you
> are at it....do so yourself.

Well, if one of my players wants to have a BattleMech, should I give
it to him? Hell, it's a cool idea! (So what if it'll change the
setting... a bit. ;> )

;P

Leszek Karlik, aka Mike - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike;
Star Wars fan and Amber junkie; FIAWOL; WTF TKD TOO;
FL/GN Leszek/Raptor II/ISD Vanguard, (SS) (PC) (ISM) {IWATS-IIC} JH(Sith)/House Scholae
Palatinae
Fireraisers of the world ignite!

From:	Steve Kenson <TalonMail@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Mon, 15 Dec 1997 16:24:57 -0500

Message no. 37 Craig Rickel <crickel@***.EDU> wrote:
>Okay, had a few choice questions for all you magic theorists out there.
>For the following discussion, please keep the following definitions in
>mind:
>Magician = Someone who spent Priority A in Magic.
>Adept = All those other magic users
>Mundane = Someone with no magical ability, i.e., helpless
>Sorcerer = Someone using the Sorcery skill
>
>1. Can a sorcerer cast a spell without using astral perception?

IMHO, yes. Spells can be targeted using either normal vision, astral
perception or (for touch spells) physical contact.

>2. Since magical adepts can't astrally perceive, how do they synchronize
>their aura to their target to cast a spell?

Personally, I all the "synchonize auras" drek in 2nd ed. was a mistake that
only muddied the waters. If you want to stick to it, say they do it
subconsciously; they don't really astral perceive. I saw that normal
(physical) line of sight is sufficient.

>3. Do adepts constructed with the Shadowrun Second Edition rules start
>with Force Points?
>3.a. Does this include Physical Adepts?

At this point, GM call. I tend to limit Force points to sorcerers only, since
non-sorcerers have nothing to spend them on EXCEPT bonding foci (if that is
permitted).

>4. A mundane has had placed upon him a quickened spell with Detect Spell
>-> Mana Barrier. A sorcerer casts a spell at him. What happens when the
>Mana Barrier comes up, since the mundane's aura can no longer be seen?

I assume you mean an anchored spell. The rules for casting spells across mana
barriers are right in the rules: +1 TN per 2 points of Barrier Rating. The
spell is already on the way, so I'd say it still makes a beeline for the
target.

>5. Can said quickened spell in question four be targetted instead of the
>mundane's aura? If so, what are the effects when the Mana Barrier comes
>up?

Spells cannot target other spells.

>6. If someone hides their aura using Shielding (i.e., the meat body with
>no aura) can spells still be cast at him?

I assume here you mean Masking, not Shielding (which does not disguise the
aura in any way). Masking can only change the appearance of the aura. IMHO,
it cannot make the user appear not to have ANY aura. So long as the target
has an aura (which Masking cannot change) it can be targeted with a spell.
That's a long way of saying, it doesn't work. : )

>7. How many magicians/shamans does it take to change a lightbulb?

That's not funny : )

>Spider Murphy
Steve K.

From:	Brian Moore <mooreb@*****.FAC.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Mon, 15 Dec 1997 18:35:28 -0500

Message no. 38 > Craig Rickel <crickel@***.EDU> said:
> ...
> 6. If someone hides their aura using Shielding (i.e., the meat body with
> no aura) can spells still be cast at him?

Freudian slip there. As many people have pointed out, hiding your aura
means using Masking. But if a Mage wants to hide from spells, that's
Shielding. Of course you could always give your players "Spell Masking"
as an advanced form of Masking, which just so happens to work exactly
like Shielding. :-)

In term of Magical Theory, remember that Masking is just hiding the true
appearance of the aura. It is still there, it just looks different.
IMC, dual-natured beings with the masked aura of normal humans can be
attacked from Astral Space (at least I think they can). And Mages can
mask the fact that they are astrally perceiving, but they can be
attacked from astral space if an astral observer suspects the truth.

> 7. How many magicians/shamans does it take to change a lightbulb?

Shaman: 0, they just wait for the Sun to rise.
Mage: 1, but it costs a lot of Karma. Because EVERYTHING a mage does
costs lots of Karma.

--
Brian Moore, mooreb@***.com | I wrote up a nice script to truncate all News&
First Albany Corp. Sysadmin | Mail sigs that are greater than 4 lines long.
standard disclaimers apply | It is still in beta testing due to an off-by-

From:	AirWisp <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Tue, 16 Dec 1997 01:45:46 EST

Message no. 39 In a message dated 97-12-15 15:35:28 EST, you write:

> > a "Lens" allowing you to "focus" upon the Astral directly.
Please
> > note, I did NOT say access to Metaplanar sight...
>
> Of course you didn't. There's no such a thing as Metaplanar sight.
> You can only project to metaplanes, you can't see them without doing
> so.

What I believe Keith meant is that a person could not normally use them to
perform Quests of True Aura ... though in the case of a Sorceror Adept
SUSTAINING the astral sight spell then I would allow (and this would also
incur the +2 sustaining modifier on the 'assensing') ...

> <snip>
>
> > Actually, it isn't unless you decide to "PC" (as in politically
> > correct) away a limitation and a handicap and a restriction.
> > Character's try and develop beyond what they have otherwise there is
> > no such thing as growth and character development. GM's who do not
> > even give solid consideration are doing their players a severe
> > injustice.
>
> Actually, it's not a problem of PC. It's a problem of world
> continuity. A spell like Astral Sight WOULD be mentioned in the
> novels, sourcebooks etc. For example in Corp Sec.
>
> Oh well, nobody prohibits you from doing an Astral Sight spell. Or
> introducing Battle Dress, PGMPs and Fusion+ power. (Waitaminute,
> that's Traveller, not Shadowrun)

The problem with what you have just said is that you are talking about the
books, and the writers do not have to explain the rule mechanics or provide
templates for their protagonists ... remember ... this spell, astral sight,
was thought up by someone who was a player, and not one of the writers ...

> <snip>
>
> > No argument there, but it is also -NOT- the GM's job to restrict a
> > character's options to the point of utter loss. Face certain facts,
> > if a Sorceror Adept -REALLY- wants to get the benefits from
> > Initiation, as an example (as in Dispelling, Quickening, Anchoring,
> > etcetera), then s/he is going to -NEED- to have astral sight access
> > in some form.
>
> Well, IMC I use slightly modified gradual initation rules (two powers
> per grade), and adepts have astral sight available to them as a
> metamagic power. And still NO Astral Sight for mundanes. See? The
> world won't break up.

Hmm ... still, though the development of Astral Sight is remarkably easy even
... just overpower the Sight spell mentioned in Awakenings and there you have
it ... also, on a side note .. the spell Disregard is nothing more than
Improved Invisibility without the Can Affect Technological Devices (not sure
of the true wording of that statement) ...

> <snip>
> > Yes, but "X-Ray" vision isn't clairvoyance, which is "sight
beyond
> > LOS", it's the ability to see through a solid, otherwise opaque,
> > substance. X'Ray is equally difficult as Astral Perception, if not
> > in some fashions more so.
>
> Well, not really. Are there MECHANICAL devices allowing Astral Sight?
> No? Thought so.

Ever hear of something called Kirlian Plate Technology ... ask around or see
if you can find information about it from the nets ... I'm sure you will find
something ...

> <snip>
> > > Obstacles are one thing... limitations on ability are another.
> >
> > Which is my statement earlier exactly...you are seperating the two
> > far to much. It won't be nearly as munchkin as you might believe
> > and would lend itself for interesting side effects.
>
> Yes. Interesting side effects, as changing the whole Corp Security
> issue etc.

Hey .. check it out ... an advancement in the SOTA curve ... gee, damn ...

On the subject of SOTA ... ever consider applying the Stress rules for
vehicles to other things besides vehicles ... this would also begin to factor
in something called Optempo also ...

> Well, Power Armor is not nearly as munchkin as one might believe and
> lends itself for intersenting side effects, too. LET'S 'AVE SOME!

Considering that a good suit of power armor costs somewhere in the 3 Million
nuyen + range ... and has lots of nifty toys too boot ...

> <sheepish grin>
>
> > Let the imagination of the players cut loose a bit, and while you
> > are at it....do so yourself.
>
> Well, if one of my players wants to have a BattleMech, should I give
> it to him? Hell, it's a cool idea! (So what if it'll change the
> setting... a bit. ;> )
>
> ;P

Considering that we consider that any Mech created (and we have figured out
how to make them - Keith and I) using the R2 rules would stomp the daylights
out of anything that BattleMech (IMHO) has at the moment ...

Have a Merry Christmas,

Mike

From:	"Leszek Karlik, aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Tue, 16 Dec 1997 15:46:32 +0000

Message no. 40 On 16 Dec 97, AirWisp disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
writing:

> In a message dated 97-12-15 15:35:28 EST, you write:
<snip>
> > Of course you didn't. There's no such a thing as Metaplanar sight.
> > You can only project to metaplanes, you can't see them without doing
> > so.

> What I believe Keith meant is that a person could not normally use
> them to perform Quests of True Aura ... though in the case of a
> Sorceror Adept SUSTAINING the astral sight spell then I would allow
> (and this would also incur the +2 sustaining modifier on the
> 'assensing') ...

Well, IMO performing Quests of True Aura, requires the ability of
Metaplanar Projection - even though they are "of Aura", they are
"Quests". (BTW IMC adepts do get the ability of metaplanar projection
later on...)

<snip>

> > Actually, it's not a problem of PC. It's a problem of world
> > continuity. A spell like Astral Sight WOULD be mentioned in the
> > novels, sourcebooks etc. For example in Corp Sec.
> >
> > Oh well, nobody prohibits you from doing an Astral Sight spell. Or
> > introducing Battle Dress, PGMPs and Fusion+ power. (Waitaminute,
> > that's Traveller, not Shadowrun)
>
> The problem with what you have just said is that you are talking
> about the books, and the writers do not have to explain the rule
> mechanics or provide templates for their protagonists ... remember
> ... this spell, astral sight, was thought up by someone who was a
> player, and not one of the writers ...

Yes. But the problem with such a spell is that as soon as the "it's
possible" word gets out, every corp researcher is going to make one
and the possibilities of astral recon go down the drain.

FAB? We don't need no steenkin FAB!

I mean, if all it takes is two wimpy Karma points for glasses of
Astral Sight, your average-to-high security sites will have guards
going around with Renraku Astral Glasses (TM)...

Remember: if the PC have thought of it, somebody else probably also
did... And corps invest heavy cash in research on astral security
(see FAB).

The only way I can see this done is that the spell allows for astral
sight, but ONLY for the magically active (be they adepts, mages,
shamans, physads etc.). Those who are not magically active see chaos.

<snip>

> > Well, IMC I use slightly modified gradual initation rules (two powers
> > per grade), and adepts have astral sight available to them as a
> > metamagic power. And still NO Astral Sight for mundanes. See? The
> > world won't break up.
>
> Hmm ... still, though the development of Astral Sight is remarkably
> easy even ... just overpower the Sight spell mentioned in Awakenings
> and there you have it ... also, on a side note .. the spell
> Disregard is nothing more than Improved Invisibility without the Can
> Affect Technological Devices (not sure of the true wording of that
> statement) ...

Well, that assumes Astral Sight is another form of normal Sight. IMO
not the case. I think what we have here is a fundamental difference
in understanding of the nature of astral space, so I guess we'll have
to agree to disagree...

<snip>
> > Well, not really. Are there MECHANICAL devices allowing Astral Sight?
> > No? Thought so.
>
> Ever hear of something called Kirlian Plate Technology ... ask
> around or see if you can find information about it from the nets ...
> I'm sure you will find something ...

Of course I did. I've read about it lots of times ago. So, please
show me where does it say Kirlian photography allows one to see
emotions associated with objects. <wicked grin>

I've read lotsa stuff about paranormal research. And IMO Kirlian
Plate is not what we're looking for.

But that's just me.

<snip>
> > Yes. Interesting side effects, as changing the whole Corp Security
> > issue etc.
>
> Hey .. check it out ... an advancement in the SOTA curve ... gee,
> damn ...

Yeah. A BIG advancement. Besides, I guess somebody would invent this
before going through all that trouble with FAB. FAB is EXPENSIVE.
Aztechnology Astral Binoculars (TM, C, patent pending) are much
cheaper... <grin>

<snip>

> > Well, if one of my players wants to have a BattleMech, should I give
> > it to him? Hell, it's a cool idea! (So what if it'll change the
> > setting... a bit. ;> )

> Considering that we consider that any Mech created (and we have
> figured out how to make them - Keith and I) using the R2 rules would
> stomp the daylights out of anything that BattleMech (IMHO) has at
> the moment ...

Yeah. Hey, I mean real Mechs, working according to real physics, not
BattleTech physics (TM) (Hey, BattleTech is just set in an alternate
universe with different laws of physics - it's that simple. :> ).

> Have a Merry Christmas,

You too. :)

Sheesh. Normal smiley looks weird in my letters. That one's better.
;>

Leszek Karlik, aka Mike - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike;
Star Wars fan and Amber junkie; FIAWOL; WTF TKD TOO;
FL/GN Leszek/Raptor II/ISD Vanguard, (SS) (PC) (ISM) {IWATS-IIC} JH(Sith)/House Scholae
Palatinae
Wrong! 30 minutes of begging is NOT considered foreplay.

From:	AirWisp <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Tue, 16 Dec 1997 11:30:18 EST

Message no. 41 In a message dated 97-12-16 11:20:11 EST, you write:

> Remember: if the PC have thought of it, somebody else probably also
> did... And corps invest heavy cash in research on astral security
> (see FAB).
>
> The only way I can see this done is that the spell allows for astral
> sight, but ONLY for the magically active (be they adepts, mages,
> shamans, physads etc.). Those who are not magically active see chaos.
>
This sounds like perhaps a nice place for game balance ... a person who does
not have Assensing as an innate talent (by this I mean mundanes) ... would not
be rolling their Intelligence for the perception test ... they would be
rolling their Psychometry skill instead .. the corp would then have to pay
(something they do not necessary like to do) for teaching and mentoring of the
mundanes that are going to have glasses ...

Or, apply a +10 modifier to their Intelligence tests (which would be
defaulting through the skill web to Psychometry) ...

How does this sound for some game balance ...

Have a Merry Christmas,

Mike

From:	Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Tue, 16 Dec 1997 21:00:29 EST

Message no. 42 In a message dated 97-12-16 11:20:12 EST, trrkt@*****.ONET.PL writes:

> On 16 Dec 97, AirWisp disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
> writing:
> > What I believe Keith meant is that a person could not normally use
> > them to perform Quests of True Aura ... though in the case of a
> > Sorceror Adept SUSTAINING the astral sight spell then I would allow
> > (and this would also incur the +2 sustaining modifier on the
> > 'assensing') ...
>
> Well, IMO performing Quests of True Aura, requires the ability of
> Metaplanar Projection - even though they are "of Aura", they are
> "Quests". (BTW IMC adepts do get the ability of metaplanar projection
> later on...)

As I also said, the spell didn't confer Astral Projection....btw, how do you
get Metaplanar Projection with Astral Perception/Projection, or this part of
the staged development process as well?

> > The problem with what you have just said is that you are talking
> > about the books, and the writers do not have to explain the rule
> > mechanics or provide templates for their protagonists ... remember
> > ... this spell, astral sight, was thought up by someone who was a
> > player, and not one of the writers ...
>
> Yes. But the problem with such a spell is that as soon as the "it's
> possible" word gets out, every corp researcher is going to make one
> and the possibilities of astral recon go down the drain.

Really? Why? Please remember that "anchorings" and/or "quickenings"
will
never have Grade of Initiation (I don't think, let me work on it....ewg).
Thus, these people will be about the same range of perceptive scale as
Watchers (oh and those stories....).

> FAB? We don't need no steenkin FAB!

Oh yes we do....perfumigated even....

> I mean, if all it takes is two wimpy Karma points for glasses of
> Astral Sight, your average-to-high security sites will have guards
> going around with Renraku Astral Glasses (TM)...

(Binder poking his head around the corner, his hat in hands, holding a pair of
Ray-Bans...) "going price....30 grand...a steal...really..."

> Remember: if the PC have thought of it, somebody else probably also
> did... And corps invest heavy cash in research on astral security
> (see FAB).

Yes, and sometimes that can be fun too...lots of game plots in that.

> The only way I can see this done is that the spell allows for astral
> sight, but ONLY for the magically active (be they adepts, mages,
> shamans, physads etc.). Those who are not magically active see chaos.

No, they just see stuff they are unfamiliar with, perhaps a +2 modifier (or a
modifier equal to (10 - Essence) as they have damaged their own selves in some
fashion...

> Well, that assumes Astral Sight is another form of normal Sight. IMO
> not the case. I think what we have here is a fundamental difference
> in understanding of the nature of astral space, so I guess we'll have
> to agree to disagree...

OH no, not again.... ;)

> > Ever hear of something called Kirlian Plate Technology ... ask
> > around or see if you can find information about it from the nets ...
> > I'm sure you will find something ...
>
> Of course I did. I've read about it lots of times ago. So, please
> show me where does it say Kirlian photography allows one to see
> emotions associated with objects. <wicked grin>

Book of Medical Knowledge...years will vary...recordings made of people under
the effects of severe emotional trauma (I don't want to know what caused that
trauma right now)...indicated variations in the individuals' "aura". This is
one of those times I wish I still was in Phoenix with the ASU library at my
beckon call....

> I've read lotsa stuff about paranormal research. And IMO Kirlian
> Plate is not what we're looking for.
>
> But that's just me.

As I said, go find a good library...a BIG library and lots of time (and who
can find that anymore?).

> > Hey .. check it out ... an advancement in the SOTA curve ... gee,
> > damn ...
>
> Yeah. A BIG advancement. Besides, I guess somebody would invent this
> before going through all that trouble with FAB. FAB is EXPENSIVE.
> Aztechnology Astral Binoculars (TM, C, patent pending) are much
> cheaper... <grin>

(Binder puts the Ray-Bans away...pulls out a Zeiss-Oculate Lens) "going
price...42 grand and some change.....watta bargain.."

> > Considering that we consider that any Mech created (and we have
> > figured out how to make them - Keith and I) using the R2 rules would
> > stomp the daylights out of anything that BattleMech (IMHO) has at
> > the moment ...

Okay, jumping in on this side of the quote marks for once....I never said it
could stomp the hell out of a Mech from BattleTECH, but I'm sure it would
surprise the shit out of a few people...

> Yeah. Hey, I mean real Mechs, working according to real physics, not
> BattleTech physics (TM) (Hey, BattleTech is just set in an alternate
> universe with different laws of physics - it's that simple. :> ).
>
>
> > Have a Merry Christmas,
> You too. :)
> Sheesh. Normal smiley looks weird in my letters. That one's better.
> ;>

(Binder smiling funny...polished teeth) "...and if you act now, I'll even gift
wrap it all for free...."

-K

From:	Jyster Cap <jyster007@*****.COM>
Subject:	Magic Questions
Date:	Sun, 1 Feb 1998 04:38:04 -0800

Message no. 43 > Hey guys I have a few questions.
>
> 1. Say if a mage is sustaining a imp. invisibility on
> a fellow runner does the mage have an astral link
> connected to him?
>
> 2. When casting healing or influence, how long is a
> turn? Is it considered a combat turn?
>
> 3. If a mage cast imp. invisibility on himself will
> thermographic vision see him?

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

From:	Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Sun, 1 Feb 1998 13:30:34 +0000

Message no. 44 And verily, did Jyster Cap hastily scribble thusly...
|
|> Hey guys I have a few questions.
|>
|> 1. Say if a mage is sustaining a imp. invisibility on
|> a fellow runner does the mage have an astral link
|> connected to him?

Or course. How else could the spell be sustained?
>
|> 2. When casting healing or influence, how long is a
|> turn? Is it considered a combat turn?

Yes.

|> 3. If a mage cast imp. invisibility on himself will
|> thermographic vision see him?

That is actually specified in the spell. It only blocks reflected, visible
light. Not generated heat.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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! :( |

From:	Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Sun, 1 Feb 1998 09:25:09 EST

Message no. 45 In a message dated 98-02-01 07:38:17 EST, you write:

> > Hey guys I have a few questions.
> >
> > 1. Say if a mage is sustaining a imp. invisibility on
> > a fellow runner does the mage have an astral link
> > connected to him?

Yes ...

> > 2. When casting healing or influence, how long is a
> > turn? Is it considered a combat turn?

All turns are three seconds long, so if a spell takes a base of 20 turns to
take full effect, then that 20 turns equals a base of 60 seconds or one
minute, and all turns are equal, not combat phases ... those are just subsets
of a turn.

> > 3. If a mage cast imp. invisibility on himself will
> > thermographic vision see him?

No, because the spell is a physical one and affects all forms of visual aids
.. this does not mean that a device that detects things based off of sound
will not be able to detect the individual (like something which detects the
sound of a heartbeat) ...

Mike

From:	"J. G. du Chatinier" <chatin@*******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Sun, 1 Feb 1998 15:26:00 +0100

Message no. 46 At 04:38 01/02/1998 -0800, you wrote:
>> Hey guys I have a few questions.
<<SNIP first question...>>
2. When casting healing or influence, how long is a
turn? Is it considered a combat turn?
**The turn is considered a combat turn..

3. If a mage cast imp. invisibility on himself will
thermographic vision see him?
***No, thermographics won't see him, just as any other electronics.... I
think it's in the spell description...

Well, hope this helped....

Jod
chatin@*******.nl
http://www.euronet.nl/users/chatin/index.htm
IDM
Male

From:	Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Sun, 1 Feb 1998 14:31:49 +0000

Message no. 47 And verily, did J. G. du Chatinier hastily scribble thusly...
| 3. If a mage cast imp. invisibility on himself will
| thermographic vision see him?
|***No, thermographics won't see him, just as any other electronics.... I
|think it's in the spell description...
|
|Well, hope this helped....

Not a lot, seeing as thermographic vision DOES see through Imp Invisibility.
And what does electronics have to do with it? Ask any Troll...

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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! :( |

From:	Damon Harper <nomad74@*******.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Sun, 1 Feb 1998 06:41:03 PST

Message no. 48 >|> 3. If a mage cast imp. invisibility on himself will
>|> thermographic vision see him?
>
>That is actually specified in the spell. It only blocks reflected,
visible
>light. Not generated heat.

Our group came up with a spell, Hyper Invisibility, that also makes
you invisible to thermo. The stats are the same as improved, but the
drain is one damage code higher- F/2+2, IIRC

-Vagabond <nomad74@*******.com><ICQ 4297972>
___________________________________________________________
¹vag·a·bond \va-ge-bänd\ adj. 1: wandering, homeless
2: of, characteristic of, or leading the life of a vagrant
or tramp 3: leading an unsettled or irresponsible life

²vagabond n: one leading a vagabond life; esp : tramp

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

From:	"J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Sun, 1 Feb 1998 11:25:59 EST

Message no. 49 In a message dated 98-02-01 09:32:48 EST, u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK writes:

> | 3. If a mage cast imp. invisibility on himself will
> | thermographic vision see him?
> |***No, thermographics won't see him, just as any other electronics.... I
> |think it's in the spell description...
> |
> |Well, hope this helped....
>
> Not a lot, seeing as thermographic vision DOES see through Imp
Invisibility.
> And what does electronics have to do with it? Ask any Troll...
>
Okay guys, here we go, simle defense on Spike's part (or is this Gurth?)..BBB,
page 157...Improved Invisibility (Like the invisibility spell, below, except
that this spell affects technological sensing devices.) Invisibility (The
spellcaster must touch the subject, who becomes invisible to normal light.
Thermographic vision can still detect body heat,...)

So, there ya have it.

So Mike, wouldn't ya say this makes the "Full Spectrum Invisibility" we made a
long time ago FAR more advantageous???

-K

From:	MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions
Date:	Sun, 1 Feb 1998 11:31:40 -0500

Message no. 50 Damon Harper once dared to write,

> Our group came up with a spell, Hyper Invisibility, that also makes
>you invisible to thermo. The stats are the same as improved, but the
>drain is one damage code higher- F/2+2, IIRC

I wanted to do a version like that except I couldn't decide =
whether masking body heat was illusion or manipulation.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><=
><>

"THAT¹S NOT FAIR!"
"You say that so often. I wonder what your basis for comparison is."
-Sarah and Jareth, Labyrinth

I am MC23

Message no. 51 >> 1. Say if a mage is sustaining a imp. invisibility on
>> a fellow runner does the mage have an astral link
>> connected to him?

Yes. This allows someone looking at the target to trace the link back and
find the caster. Not much else though I beleive.

>> 2. When casting healing or influence, how long is a
>> turn? Is it considered a combat turn?

Spot on.

>> 3. If a mage cast imp. invisibility on himself will
>> thermographic vision see him?

Yep. Improved invis just makes the spell physical, it doesn't make it
include thermo. Use disregard to cover that base.

NightRain.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|The universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://nightrain.home.ml.org

EMAIL : nightrain@***.brisnet.org.au
: macey@***.brisnet.org.au
ICQ : 2587947

Message no. 52 >Okay guys, here we go, simle defense on Spike's part (or is this
Gurth?)..BBB,
>page 157...Improved Invisibility (Like the invisibility spell, below,
except
>that this spell affects technological sensing devices.) Invisibility
(The
>spellcaster must touch the subject, who becomes invisible to normal light.
>Thermographic vision can still detect body heat,...)
>
>So, there ya have it.
>
>So Mike, wouldn't ya say this makes the "Full Spectrum Invisibility" we
made a
>long time ago FAR more advantageous???

That's what Disregard is for though.

NightRain.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|The universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://nightrain.home.ml.org

EMAIL : nightrain@***.brisnet.org.au
: macey@***.brisnet.org.au
ICQ : 2587947

Message no. 53 Ok everyone, this goes out to our Spellslingers and Ghostwalkers.
I am not a newbee, but somethings allways got me a bitt wimpy
arround.

A) How long does an elemantal stay to for the conjurer to do his
bidding.

-a) Every 24 h one service is lost AFTER the first service (until all
service's are used up.

-b) As long as the conjurer sends the elemantal back to his/her/its
plane (after one service) the elementals stays bonded for eter-
nety or until the last service is used up.

I think its not statet very well in the SR II (sorry, here in germany its
still not available, grmbl), but maybe its because of translation erors.

B)How many targets can a spirit affect with his power.

-a) As many as he/she/it can see (aka 20.000 on a concert or so)

-b) As many as the shaman can see (dito)

-c) none of the above (insert explanation please ;o))

C) On the astral plane, if it is totaly dark (aka lifeless), or better said
NEAR totally dark would a conjured watcher give light to its
surounding because it is a source of pure mana, and could it be
used as a sort of lamp (limited use of course)?

Thats it for the moment, dunno if that questions where discussed earlier
on this board, but if you have some notes or rants please answer.
Thanx in advance.

--->Steadfast
to be "human" is not a state of living
I want to archive.

Message no. 54 At 05:00 AM 9/6/98 +0200, Laughingman scribbled:
>Ok everyone, this goes out to our Spellslingers and Ghostwalkers.
>I am not a newbee, but somethings allways got me a bitt wimpy
>arround.
>
>A) How long does an elemantal stay to for the conjurer to do his
> bidding.
>
>-a) Every 24 h one service is lost AFTER the first service (until all
> service's are used up.
>
>-b) As long as the conjurer sends the elemantal back to his/her/its
> plane (after one service) the elementals stays bonded for eter-
> nety or until the last service is used up.
>
>I think its not statet very well in the SR II (sorry, here in germany its
>still not available, grmbl), but maybe its because of translation erors.

Elementals stay with their conjurer until all services are used up. One
service is automatically used up per 24 hour period that the elemental
stays in astral or physical form - even if it is performing a different
service (page 187 of SR3).

>B)How many targets can a spirit affect with his power.
>
>-a) As many as he/she/it can see (aka 20.000 on a concert or so)
>
>-b) As many as the shaman can see (dito)
>
>-c) none of the above (insert explanation please ;o))

Depending on the power to be used a spirit can affect a number of separate
targets equal to its Essence - assuming it is sustaining no other powers
simultaneously. The descriptions of the various powers and their effects
can be found on pages 260 through 265 of SR3.

>C) On the astral plane, if it is totaly dark (aka lifeless), or better said
> NEAR totally dark would a conjured watcher give light to its
> surounding because it is a source of pure mana, and could it be
> used as a sort of lamp (limited use of course)?

The astral plane is not dark at all, in fact it is bathed in the glow of
microbiologicals that are floating in the air (the gaiasphere I think
someone called it), however, in a heavily processed and enclosed space with
high-powered air filtration systems there would be little or no 'lighting'.
In such an instance a sufficiently powerful entity could act as a source
of light.

>Thats it for the moment, dunno if that questions where discussed earlier
>on this board, but if you have some notes or rants please answer.
>Thanx in advance.

Sokay. Any time.

- ARKHAM
"A mind is a terrible thing to waste somebody with..."

Message no. 55 >From: laughingman <laughingman@*******.DE>
>Subject: Magicquestions

>
>A) How long does an elemantal stay to for the conjurer to do his
> bidding.
>
>-a) Every 24 h one service is lost AFTER the first service (until all
> service's are used up.
>
>-b) As long as the conjurer sends the elemantal back to his/her/its
> plane (after one service) the elementals stays bonded for eter-
> nety or until the last service is used up.
I think (dont quote me though my books are not to hand-ED) that
both are possible but it requires a service to call the elemental up
from the home plane.

>I think its not statet very well in the SR II (sorry, here in germany
its
>still not available, grmbl), but maybe its because of translation
erors.
>
>B)How many targets can a spirit affect with his power.
>
>-a) As many as he/she/it can see (aka 20.000 on a concert or so)
>
>-b) As many as the shaman can see (dito)
>
>-c) none of the above (insert explanation please ;o))
I think the answer is B as the order comes from the shaman/hermetic
so the spirit/elemental will only affect those that the mage wants
affected.Spirits only do what there told they have little or no creative
liscense. however if the mage uses a funky power where he can see
through the spirits eyes Those that he wants affected = what the spirit
can see.

>C) On the astral plane, if it is totaly dark (aka lifeless), or better
said
> NEAR totally dark would a conjured watcher give light to its
> surounding because it is a source of pure mana, and could it be
> used as a sort of lamp (limited use of course)?
>
In the astral there is a "Magical" light on all the time, the
auras of living things give off astral light, merely the prescence of
the mages astral body is enough to illuminate (astrally of course-ED) an
entire room.
I hope i've been of help..if you are confused byu my answers, ask
someone else because i just get harder and harder to understand.
mRhappTHEsMILEYman

*Just because i'm insane doesnt mean i'm insane* -wilbur

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Message no. 56 >A) How long does an elemantal stay to for the conjurer to do his
> bidding.
>
>-a) Every 24 h one service is lost AFTER the first service (until all
> service's are used up.
>
>-b) As long as the conjurer sends the elemantal back to his/her/its
> plane (after one service) the elementals stays bonded for eter-
> nety or until the last service is used up.
>

A if the elemntal remains in astral space or manifest, B if the mage
"sends it away" and must call is up. SR3 is fairly explicite on this.

>I think its not statet very well in the SR II (sorry, here in germany its
>still not available, grmbl), but maybe its because of translation erors.
>
>B)How many targets can a spirit affect with his power.
>
>-a) As many as he/she/it can see (aka 20.000 on a concert or so)
>
>-b) As many as the shaman can see (dito)
>
>-c) none of the above (insert explanation please ;o))
>

C- most powers can only be used on one tartget at a time (but can be
"sustained" while another is targeted- with no penalty). SR3 goes into
detail on this; I think most times, the spirit can keep up to "force"
power uses going.

>C) On the astral plane, if it is totaly dark (aka lifeless), or better
said
> NEAR totally dark would a conjured watcher give light to its
> surounding because it is a source of pure mana, and could it be
> used as a sort of lamp (limited use of course)?
>

How would it be lifeless? If it were, there would be no observer! I
suppose what you propose could be done, but, afaik, there are not any
lighting penalties in astral space anyhow.

Mongoose

Message no. 57 Mongoose wrote

> >A) How long does an elemantal stay to for the conjurer to do his
> > bidding.
> >
> >-a) Every 24 h one service is lost AFTER the first service (until all
> > service's are used up.
> >
> >-b) As long as the conjurer sends the elemantal back to his/her/its
> > plane (after one service) the elementals stays bonded for eter-
> > nety or until the last service is used up.
> >
>
> A if the elemntal remains in astral space or manifest, B if the mage
> "sends it away" and must call is up. SR3 is fairly explicite on this.
>
Thank all of you for the answers, I do think many questions will
be answered after the workthroug of the 3rd Edition. And many
moore will arise new.
I'll post them then ;o)

--->Steadfast
to be "human" is not a state of living
I want to archive.

Message no. 58 Well I finally got my hands on Awakenings again and while reading
through I came up with some questions:

- Attuned wards (p.100); Aura synchonization: is this a process that
can be extended over multiple turns? And does a failure to synchonize
alert the caster of the ward?
And does the caster of the ward also need to attune the ward for
his/her carried foci? Or for that matter can the ward be attuned for
other (non-magical) group members? (according to the exact
description I would say no, but if the foci can pass through there is
an exception).

- Reflective shielding (p. 99. Yeah, I know, I always read these
books backwards :) - Do dice gained from exclusiveness and fetish use
add to the effective force of the spell (i.e. force 4 + expendable
fetish = 6; or just 4 + 2 dice), and therefore make reflective
shielding more difficult?

Now a few more general things that came up:
How do you handle "new" skills with existing characters? A lot of the
books kind of drop new skills in the laps of experienced PC's which
they logically already should have. I've had a mage detective and he
would have had the aura reading skill from start up when it had been
available. Now the guy is a NPC I can just give him a load of
points in the skill, but I can imagine that players claiming freebie
skill points every time a book comes out could be a bit of a
problem (and coming up with the most impossible reasons).

The one time that I was in a situation like this I allowed the player
to purchase the skill by knocking off a few points of different
skills, transferring them to the new skill and give a karmic debt to
him (in case you're wondering it was a rather bookwormish mage with
and the Grimoire came out adding enchanting to the magical ball
park). Any better way to deal with this?

Thanks for any input,

Martin Steffens
chimerae@***.ie

Message no. 59 On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:27:11 +0000 Martin Steffens <chimerae@***.IE>
writes:
>Well I finally got my hands on Awakenings again and while reading
>through I came up with some questions:
>
>- Attuned wards (p.100); Aura synchonization: is this a process that
>can be extended over multiple turns? And does a failure to synchonize
>alert the caster of the ward?
>And does the caster of the ward also need to attune the ward for
>his/her carried foci? Or for that matter can the ward be attuned for
>other (non-magical) group members? (according to the exact
>description I would say no, but if the foci can pass through there is
>an exception).

Foci: I assume that's automatic when he/she attunes the word to
hims/herself (since their bonded with karma).
Other group members: This would only be an issue with astrally active
group members, right? I would say no they can't be attuned to. :)

>- Reflective shielding (p. 99. Yeah, I know, I always read these
>books backwards :) - Do dice gained from exclusiveness and fetish use
>add to the effective force of the spell (i.e. force 4 + expendable
>fetish = 6; or just 4 + 2 dice), and therefore make reflective
>shielding more difficult?

In SR2, the fetishes and exclusivity options increased the force for
casting therefore the reflective shielding would be more difficult.

>Now a few more general things that came up:
>How do you handle "new" skills with existing characters? A lot of the
>books kind of drop new skills in the laps of experienced PC's which
>they logically already should have. I've had a mage detective and he
>would have had the aura reading skill from start up when it had been
>available. Now the guy is a NPC I can just give him a load of
>points in the skill, but I can imagine that players claiming freebie
>skill points every time a book comes out could be a bit of a
>problem (and coming up with the most impossible reasons).
>
>The one time that I was in a situation like this I allowed the player
>to purchase the skill by knocking off a few points of different
>skills, transferring them to the new skill and give a karmic debt to
>him (in case you're wondering it was a rather bookwormish mage with
>and the Grimoire came out adding enchanting to the magical ball
>park). Any better way to deal with this?

Default or ... allowing for the player to rearrange points to make room
for that skill should be okay. :)

I can see just giving the character this skill for free (or at karmic
debt) because including the skill is actually a change in mechanics (not
just a SB saying "Oooh, here's a nifty skill") and so in order to
maintain the same level of ability, the mage would need the aura reading
skill at Int level.

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"Coffee without caffeine is like sex without the spanking." -- Cupid

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Message no. 60 On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:27:11 +0000 Martin Steffens <chimerae@***.IE>
writes:

>How do you handle "new" skills with existing characters? A lot of the
>books kind of drop new skills in the laps of experienced PC's which
>they logically already should have. I've had a mage detective and he
>would have had the aura reading skill from start up when it had been
>available. Now the guy is a NPC I can just give him a load of
>points in the skill, but I can imagine that players claiming freebie
>skill points every time a book comes out could be a bit of a
>problem (and coming up with the most impossible reasons).

Easy -- or, at least, it's never been a problem for me. A conversation I
had recently with one of my players:

-"Hey, Playername, I just got done reading the Grimoire. Guess what,
there's a new skill -- Enchanting."

-"What does it do?"

-"Allows you to yadda yadda yadda. Tell me what level your character would
have it at?"

-"Well, he could not have learned it when he was a wage mage, so that
leaves A&M&M. Way I see him, he'd have taken a class or two in it, but his
main focus is elsewhere."

-"So what, about 2 or so?"

-"Yeah, sounds fair."

Then again, my players are more mature than average. This person also
recently asked me about the rules for making an elemental guard an area.
Does he want to guard his home? No, he wants to build a garden and
playground in Puyallup and guard it with an elemental so no one messes
with it. :)

===
--Number 10, aka Aneirin Two-Tails.

"What's the blast radius of a mouse?"

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Message no. 61 1st. A mage has one elemental hovering around waiting for orders. The
mage takes a Deadly wound and hits the ground. 2D6 are rolled and the
spirit does not go free. So what does it do then? Most likely it goes
back to its metaplane, but is it still bound to the magician?

2nd. A shapeshifter initiate wants to mask his aura. It says in the Grim
(p. 46) that "an astrally perceiving or projecting initiate cannot mask
his aura completely. An astral body that looks like a mundane with no
meat body attached is pretty odd..." Now that implies that if the
initiate has a meat body attached he can mask his aura to look mundane
and not look "odd." Also stated is that an initiate can mask a foci, and
it doesn't make a distinction between being active or not. Does this mean
that a dual-natured initiate, or even one astrally perceiving can mask
the fact that he is in astral space? Does it also mean that he can hide
the fact that he has an active foci from astral observers (thereby
protecting it from attack)?

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Message no. 62 >1st. A mage has one elemental hovering around waiting for orders. The
>mage takes a Deadly wound and hits the ground. 2D6 are rolled and the
>spirit does not go free. So what does it do then?

It "dissapates". One theory is that a spirit is just the magicians will
given magical form. When the magician's will dies, if the form is strong
enough it can take on a life of its own. If it is not strong enough, it
dissolves back into the pure mana from which it was created.

>Most likely it goes
>back to its metaplane, but is it still bound to the magician?

No.

>2nd. A shapeshifter initiate wants to mask his aura. It says in the Grim
>(p. 46) that "an astrally perceiving or projecting initiate cannot mask
>his aura completely. An astral body that looks like a mundane with no
>meat body attached is pretty odd..." Now that implies that if the
>initiate has a meat body attached he can mask his aura to look mundane
>and not look "odd." Also stated is that an initiate can mask a foci, and
>it doesn't make a distinction between being active or not. Does this mean
>that a dual-natured initiate, or even one astrally perceiving can mask
>the fact that he is in astral space?

The rule you quoted says no, but the logic doesn't make sense for just
perceiving magicians. I'd change the rule to say "an astrally projecting
initiate cannot mask his aura completely". Dual and perceiving characters
could.

>Does it also mean that he can hide the fact that he has an active foci
>from astral observers

Yes and...

>(thereby protecting it from attack)?

no.

Masking only prevents the focus from being "seen". This only stops attacks
that require the attacker to "see" the target. The masked focus couldn't,
for example, pass through a ward.

Wordman

Message no. 63 :The rule you quoted says no, but the logic doesn't make sense for just
:perceiving magicians. I'd change the rule to say "an astrally projecting
:initiate cannot mask his aura completely". Dual and perceiving characters
:could.

I disagree- especially in SR3, it makes no sense that a dual natured
(or pecieving) being would not show up as astrally present, masked or not;
they are capable of affecting (and being affected by) the astral plane in
ways mundanes can not. They could conciel thier magical ablity, apearing
as, say, a "mundane" dual natured being, or a "seer"- a mage with ONLY
the
ablity to percieve.

:>Does it also mean that he can hide the fact that he has an active foci
:>from astral observers

IMHO, masking a focus conceals the fact that it is a focus. If it is
active, it will still be dual natured, and hence pretty obvious.

Mongoose

Message no. 64 Charles E Thul wrote:...snip...

> and not look "odd." Also stated is that an initiate can mask a foci, and
> ...snip, again.

If it please the court, one focus, two foci, and water the ficus. --Anders

Message no. 65 On Wed, 9 Dec 1998 19:49:55 -0600 Charles E Thul <cthul@****.COM> writes:
<SNIP>
>2nd. A shapeshifter initiate wants to mask his aura. It says in the
>Grim (p. 46) that "an astrally perceiving or projecting initiate
>cannot mask his aura completely. An astral body that looks like a
>mundane with no meat body attached is pretty odd..."

Try rewording the above to say "an astrally perceiving or projecting
initiate cannot mask his aura completely. A mundane aura with an astral
presence is pretty odd..."

>Now that implies
>that if the initiate has a meat body attached he can mask his aura to
>look mundane and not look "odd." Also stated is that an initiate can
>mask a foci, and it doesn't make a distinction between being active or
>not. Does this mean that a dual-natured initiate, or even one astrally
>perceiving can mask the fact that he is in astral space?

No. (IMO.)

>Does it also
>mean that he can hide the fact that he has an active foci from astral
>observers (thereby protecting it from attack)?

Yes. But the Masking can be pierced.

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"Coffee without caffeine is like sex without the spanking." -- Cupid
"A magician is always 'touching' himself" --Page 123, Grimoire (2nd
Edition)

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Message no. 66 >:>Does it also mean that he can hide the fact that he has an active foci
>:>from astral observers
>
>
>IMHO, masking a focus conceals the fact that it is a focus. If it is
>active, it will still be dual natured, and hence pretty obvious.

To me, this defeats the whole purpose of masking a focus. I want to be able
to mask active foci in my game. To maintain this logic, you pretty much have
to say that dual-beings can mask the fact that they are astral. The point
here is that I think the source of disagreement between Mongoose and I is
that I want masked active foci and he does not. As far as I can tell,
neither of our positions is "more correct" than the other (as far as going
"by the book" goes), and both are internally logical.

I think we are both agree, however, that however you treat active foci, you
need to dual-natured beings (including perceiving magicians) the same way.

Wordman

Message no. 67 > >:>Does it also mean that he can hide the fact that he has an active
> foci
> >:>from astral observers
> >
> >
> >IMHO, masking a focus conceals the fact that it is a focus. If it is
> >active, it will still be dual natured, and hence pretty obvious.
>
> To me, this defeats the whole purpose of masking a focus. I want to be
> able to mask active foci in my game. To maintain this logic, you
> pretty much have to say that dual-beings can mask the fact that they
> are astral. The point here is that I think the source of disagreement
> between Mongoose and I is that I want masked active foci and he does
> not. As far as I can tell, neither of our positions is "more correct"
> than the other (as far as going "by the book" goes), and both are
> internally logical.
>
> I think we are both agree, however, that however you treat active
> foci, you need to dual-natured beings (including perceiving magicians)
> the same way.
>
> Wordman
>
Errr...I always thought that the Grimoire said that ANYTHING that was
astrally active (dual-natured critters, astrally projecting or
perceiving mages, quickened spells and ACTIVE FOCI), so long as it's
being masked by something with the masking power or an initiated mage
with the masking ability. Any kind of focus (active or not) can be made
to 'disappear', unless you can penetrate the masking. So, no, foci,
active or not, are not obviously dual-natured if masked - at least,
that's what I thought it said. As I recall, it never SPECIFICALLY said
that 'active foci' can be masked. It DID say that 'foci' can be masked,
which, you (or at least I) would assume, means both active and dormant
foci. If not, as Wordman says, it defeats the purpose of masking where
foci are concerned.

Now, this is how I always interpreted it. Foci are normally evident as
magical items separate to whoever is carrying them (except spell locks -
and now spell sustaining foci? - which have been turned off). As I see
it, an initiate who is masking his foci 'absorbs' the aura of the foci
into his own aura - so it looks like there's just one magical entity -
him (or her as the case may be). Same with quickened spells. Now, the
initiate can also mask his own aura to look like a non-initiated mage
(big thrill) or A MUNDANE! I can't exactly recall if that works for a
perceiving or projecting mage, but I would assume so - otherwise there
would never have been any problem with projecting mages looking like a
'mundane with no meat body'. So a mage can mask the fact that he's a
mage, even when astrally perceiving (i.e. even when dual-natured). So
tell me, if he can mask the fact that he's dual-natured, why couldn't he
mask the fact that his foci (which shouldn't even be obvious) are
dual-natured?

Can someone check me on this?

*Doc'...damn! It's been a long day - too long. I can't even think of a
smartass thing to say! *sigh* I'll try again tomorrow.*

Doc'

.sig Sauer

Message no. 68 According to Charles E Thul, at 19:49 on 9 Dec 98, the word on
the street was...

> 2nd. A shapeshifter initiate wants to mask his aura. It says in the Grim
> (p. 46) that "an astrally perceiving or projecting initiate cannot mask
> his aura completely. An astral body that looks like a mundane with no
> meat body attached is pretty odd..." Now that implies that if the
> initiate has a meat body attached he can mask his aura to look mundane
> and not look "odd."

Yes. What that passage refers to, I think, is when astrally projecting --
mundanes don't go astral, so a mundane aura that has no body looks
strange, but an initiate in his or her body can appear mundane without
attracting attention.

> Also stated is that an initiate can mask a foci

Focus. "Foci" is plural.

> and it doesn't make a distinction between being active or not. Does this
> mean that a dual-natured initiate, or even one astrally perceiving can
> mask the fact that he is in astral space?

I think a dual-natured character (and that includes assensing magicians)
cannot mask the fact they are active on the astral plane. The reason for
this is the above-quoted text that says an astrally-projecting "mundane"
will appear odd -- it's obvious they are astrally active. The best you
could get IMHO is someone who appears to be an astrally-perceiving
mundane. Or, in case of a dual-natured creature like a shapeshifter,
something that appears strange at first sight, and looks like an dual-
natured critter that is not active on the astral plane (yes, that sounds
like a paradox).

> Does it also mean that he can hide the fact that he has an active foci
> from astral observers (thereby protecting it from attack)?

Yes, as can all initiates. Masking can be used for the explicit purpose of
hiding foci from astral "eyes," thereby preventing them from being
attacked. However, initiates who can see through the masking can attack
the focus as normal.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
You're only popular with anorexia.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Message no. 69 In a message dated 12/10/1998 12:53:44 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
wordman@*******.COM writes:

>
> I think we are both agree, however, that however you treat active foci, you
> need to dual-natured beings (including perceiving magicians) the same way.
>
Okay folks, here is a thought, and this has only to do with the idea of
masking as it exists in SR2 (as at this stupid hour I'm awake).

Masking a target is being treated like Illusions, IMO, by Mongoose. Someone
with Astral Perception is getting the opportunity to see right through them,
almost automatically. That simply doesn't fly with the ability as it is
presented, nor with the concept as a whole.

"Masking" is the ability to conceal or obfuscate in some manner or form. By
creating a "Masking Test", with successes being used to raise the perceptual
target number, you are doing just that. You are making it harder to see what
is there before one's sense of perception (however it is functioning).

Masking an Active Foci is possible, as per the rules in SR2 already. It
*should* be possible to perform the same function with regards to any other
astrally present object or being. It is mentioned in the Grimoire II, that it
is possible to even "raise to a metaplane" the aura of a given thing and hide
it there. Then it turns around and doesn't give squat information as to how
to make that happen.

IMO, this should be possible to do with any astral presence, be it a Dual
Natured "Critter" (such as a Shapeshifter or Dracoform) to a Ward ("hey,
I'm
wanting my lodge to be hidden" says the Spider Shaman PC to the GM) all the
way to an active spell foci (anything from a Power Foci to Spell Sustaining
Foci in 3rd edition).

Now Mongoose may or may not be agreeing or desirous of seeing this occur. But
it is simply a matter of the development of things to come in general. IMO,
if Masking cannot do this now, it will only be a matter of time before
someone, somewhere, learns how to do it properly. Maybe it takes a further
Metamagical Development, in much the same way that "Shielding" (Grimoire)
eventually gained understanding to perform "Reflective Shielding"
(Awakenings). Also like how "Dispelling" (Grimoire) eventually becomes
"Cleansing" (Awakenings).

The really scarey thing IMO is that Dispelling is now a thing performable by
any magician capable of utilizing *active* sorcery skill in 3rd edition.
Makes me wonder what else could be done differently, and how that may impact
the game.

I know there are house rules out there concerning the potential uses to
Masking. We've got 'em here at HHH. What does anyone else have, and how
would it work, if it were possible, IYO?

-K

Message no. 70 In a message dated 12/10/1998 5:18:27 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU writes:

<snip what looks like Doc's version of a Masking Rant>
>
> Can someone check me on this?
>
You are doing just fine Doc, just fine....
-K

Message no. 71 For the mere cost of a Thaum, Charles E Thul wrote:
/
/ 1st. A mage has one elemental hovering around waiting for orders. The
/ mage takes a Deadly wound and hits the ground. 2D6 are rolled and the
/ spirit does not go free. So what does it do then? Most likely it goes
/ back to its metaplane, but is it still bound to the magician?

IMHO what the spirit does would depend on it's relationship with the
magician.

If the magician has been treating the elemental well, in my game the
elemental would probably try to help him out. Just because the
elemental has to provide X services, doesn't mean it won't do more if
it likes the mage that summoned it.

If the relationship was neutral the elemental would probably return to
the metaplanes and wait to be called again.

If the relationship was negative the elemental would probably hang
around (it wasn't ordered back to the metaplanes to wait on standby)
hoping that it would be several days (24-hour periods) before the mage
regained consciousness, using up the services it owed the mage.

AFAIK the elemental would remain bound to the mage. If simple loss of
consciousness severed the bond, then the bond would be severed if a
mage went to sleep.

-David B.
--
"Earn what you have been given."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm

Message no. 72 :>IMHO, masking a focus conceals the fact that it is a focus. If it is
:>active, it will still be dual natured, and hence pretty obvious.
:
:To me, this defeats the whole purpose of masking a focus. I want to be
able
:to mask active foci in my game. To maintain this logic, you pretty much
have
:to say that dual-beings can mask the fact that they are astral. The point
:here is that I think the source of disagreement between Mongoose and I is
:that I want masked active foci and he does not. As far as I can tell,
:neither of our positions is "more correct" than the other (as far as
going
:"by the book" goes), and both are internally logical.
:
:I think we are both agree, however, that however you treat active foci,
you
:need to dual-natured beings (including perceiving magicians) the same
way.
:
:Wordman

I do not really "want" one or the other, I was just stating my view.
I agree with your logic (you must treat both the same) and can't
cotton to a dual being suddenly seeming "non-dual" because it can mask.
Your solution that it mearly deceives perception is interesting (allowing
wards and other astral "phenomomina" to affect the duals)- I'm still
undecided on if it holds together logically, and the eventual masking
rules in MITS would have to be considered. The fact that deceiving wards
is (currently) a masking VARIENT lends some credence to it, though.
I suppose my main gripe is sustaining foci - if you mask them, is the
spell still sustained? I suppose its no odder than a masked mage
sustaining a spell, and either way, the spell can be seen and dispelled.
HMMM. That 's the only focus type that, when masked, adds so much to
power as to imbalance things, and if the SPELL is still vulnerable, I gots
no probs, balance wise.

Mongoose

Message no. 73 :Errr...I always thought that the Grimoire said that ANYTHING that was
:astrally active (dual-natured critters, astrally projecting or
:perceiving mages, quickened spells and ACTIVE FOCI), so long as it's
:being masked by something with the masking power or an initiated mage
:with the masking ability.

Sure; a projecting mage can mask as a mundane. Doesn't change the fact
that he is projecting, and hence vulnerable to astral attack. IMO, same
would logically goes for dual beings / objects; they look mundane, but are
still astrally present.

:Any kind of focus (active or not) can be made
:to 'disappear', unless you can penetrate the masking.

So a projecting mage can mask and just "disapear"? ICK.

: It DID say that 'foci' can be masked,
:which, you (or at least I) would assume, means both active and dormant
:foci. If not, as Wordman says, it defeats the purpose of masking where
:foci are concerned.

OH? What purpose is that? I though masking was for DECEPTION, not
defense. You might better fool people into thinking you're mundane (and
hence sneak past security) if you ain't carring a rating 4 power focus (or
a wepon focus- masked adepts are quite subtle).

:Now, the
:initiate can also mask his own aura to look like a non-initiated mage
:(big thrill) or A MUNDANE! I can't exactly recall if that works for a
:perceiving or projecting mage, but I would assume so - otherwise there
:would never have been any problem with projecting mages looking like a
:'mundane with no meat body'. So a mage can mask the fact that he's a
:mage, even when astrally perceiving (i.e. even when dual-natured). So
:tell me, if he can mask the fact that he's dual-natured, why couldn't he
:mask the fact that his foci (which shouldn't even be obvious) are
:dual-natured?

He can mask as a non-intiate, or as a mundane. A percieving mundane is
odd (actually, its un-heard-of), and a projecting mundane is really odd
(but possible, via a free spirit). In fact, the example of a "projecting
mundane" apearance IS given in the masking rules.

Mongoose

Message no. 74 On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 07:32:26 -0700 David Buehrer
<dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG> writes:

>If the magician has been treating the elemental well, in my game the
>elemental would probably try to help him out. Just because the
>elemental has to provide X services, doesn't mean it won't do more if
>it likes the mage that summoned it.
>
>If the relationship was neutral the elemental would probably return to
>the metaplanes and wait to be called again.
>
>If the relationship was negative the elemental would probably hang
>around (it wasn't ordered back to the metaplanes to wait on standby)
>hoping that it would be several days (24-hour periods) before the mage
>regained consciousness, using up the services it owed the mage.

It seems to me that these relationship definitions would be more
applicable to an ally than to a regular spirit. It seems that to develop
something like this the mage would have to go out of his way to retain
this spirit in his "stable," i.e., instead of using all of its services
and letting it go, he would perform the ritual to increase the number of
services owed by the spirit (that's from somewhere in the Grim, but I
don't remember where).

>AFAIK the elemental would remain bound to the mage. If simple loss of
>consciousness severed the bond, then the bond would be severed if a
>mage went to sleep.

There's a slight difference between a simple nap and having your insides
spread around by a burst fire shotgun :)

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Message no. 75 On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 12:13:53 +0100 Gurth <gurth@******.NL> writes:

-- Also stated is that an initiate can mask a foci
>Focus. "Foci" is plural.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I took five years of Latin and I can't remember a thing
:)

snip...
>I think a dual-natured character (and that includes assensing
>magicians) cannot mask the fact they are active on the astral plane.
snip...
-- Does it also mean that he can hide the fact that he has an active
--foci from astral observers (thereby protecting it from attack)?
>Yes, as can all initiates. Masking can be used for the explicit
>purpose of hiding foci from astral "eyes," thereby preventing them from
being
>attacked. However, initiates who can see through the masking can
>attack the focus as normal.

Um, how can you have one without the other. There basically the same
thing, in one case the dual natured object is a living being, and in the
other it is an active focus. So whichever way you go, you have to stay
consistant. The biggest problem I have with characters being in astral
perception then masking to make it appear as if they are not, is that
they would be free to attack astral beings without fearing being
counterattacked or attacked first. Not that there is anything wrong with
striking from concealment, but it makes the players lives much easier if
they can kill the astral opposition with relative impunity.
Also, just because it can't be seen doesn't mean that it isn't there. A
player can mask himself and his foci (all of them) all he wants, the
barrier will still stop them from moving through it.

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Message no. 76 According to Charles E Thul, at 21:02 on 10 Dec 98, the word on
the street was...

> >Focus. "Foci" is plural.
>
> Yeah, yeah, yeah, I took five years of Latin and I can't remember a thing
> :)

Funny, I never took Latin and I do these things right ;)

> Um, how can you have one without the other. There basically the same
> thing, in one case the dual natured object is a living being, and in the
> other it is an active focus. So whichever way you go, you have to stay
> consistant.

True, but it seems to me that if you apply the same rule to both, you run
into a problem, like you said: either the magician can attack with
impunity, or there's no point in masking foci. I opted for the compromise
in which the focus is masked but the astral perception is not. Perhaps
assensing is so much more "powerful" than a focus that it can't be masked,
while a focus can?

BTW, I hope there's a way in MITS for non-initiates to look through
masking a well, but at a penalty. I've been thinking of considering a
normal magician as a grade -2 or -4 initiate for attempting to see through
masking, but I haven't used it in a game yet.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
You're only popular with anorexia.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Message no. 77 > :Errr...I always thought that the Grimoire said that ANYTHING that was
> :astrally active (dual-natured critters, astrally projecting or
> :perceiving mages, quickened spells and ACTIVE FOCI), so long as it's
> :being masked by something with the masking power or an initiated mage
> :with the masking ability.
>
> Sure; a projecting mage can mask as a mundane. Doesn't change the
> fact that he is projecting, and hence vulnerable to astral attack.
> IMO, same would logically goes for dual beings / objects; they look
> mundane, but are still astrally present.
>
Exactly. That's what I was saying. They're present - but they LOOK
mundane. The thing is, they look mundane on BOTH planes. That's the
whole point of masking. Sure, you can attack them - but you have to be
able to see that they're there first.

> :Any kind of focus (active or not) can be made
> :to 'disappear', unless you can penetrate the masking.
>
> So a projecting mage can mask and just "disapear"? ICK.
>
No - you're taking me out of context there. As I said (and I think some
people agreed with me) foci can be 'visually absorbed' into the
initiate's aura. That's why initiates can automatically mask foci of a
total rating equal to their initiation level. Their own aura overpowers
the aura of the foci, or something like that. The mage's aura, on the
other hand, can't be made to just disappear. It CAN be made to look like
something else though - a mundane or a non-initiated mage. Think about
it - the question of 'mundane auras with no meat attached' would never
have come up if a mage could just 'disappear'. The idea, though, is that
within a certain range of options, an initiated mage can choose how they
appear on the astral plane and they can mask (i.e. hide) a certain
amount of foci. There is no invulnerability at all - but just like you
can't shoot someone with a pistol if you don't know they're there, you
can't attack something in astral space if you DON'T KNOW IT'S THERE.
That's the whole point of masking.

> : It DID say that 'foci' can be masked,
> :which, you (or at least I) would assume, means both active and
> dormant
> :foci. If not, as Wordman says, it defeats the purpose of masking
> where
> :foci are concerned.
>
>
> OH? What purpose is that? I though masking was for DECEPTION, not
> defense. You might better fool people into thinking you're mundane
> (and hence sneak past security) if you ain't carring a rating 4 power
> focus (or a wepon focus- masked adepts are quite subtle).
>
That's where you're wrong, though, at least in SR2. Check the Grimoire -
as I said above, it says an initated mage can automatically mask foci up
to a total rating of his initiatory grade. Now just think about this
logically for a moment. A mage has a focus. Under normal circumstances,
who can detect it? ONLY OTHER MAGES. Other people can physically FIND
it, but they won't know it's magical. Now, how do those other mages know
that it's magical? BY LOOKING AT IT ASTRALLY. So, what do we get from
this? According to the Grimoire, foci can be masked (which is, in
itself, an astral operation - masking has no effect on the physical
plane). So who would you be 'masking' your foci from? Other mages,
right? And if you're not hiding them physically, what's left? Hiding
them on the astral plane. You may not like it, but that is the purpose
of masking foci. To hide them from astral detection. By saying that that
'astral link' or dual-nature of foci cannot be hidden, you are basically
arguing that you CAN'T mask foci (because that's what masking involves),
which, according to the Grimoire, is wrong. You may not like that, but
that's how it is.

<Snipples(TM)>

Anyway, I'm glad we agree on what mages can do as far as masking
themselves go.

*Doc' is caught trying to smuggle his Potency of the Gods (also known as
the Big Dick (TM) spell) sustaining focus through customs. "Damn, I KNEW
I should've initiated when I had the chance."*

Doc'

.sig Sauer

Message no. 78 Ok I'm gonna sound stupid here but I'm just starting to let characters
play mages in my game since they were all fairly new to shadowrun and
there's enough rules for them to try to memorize let alone having me
(who never played a mage before and I just started GMing as well).
Anyway what my point is is that I've got MitS and the Grimoire..

1. there's a lot of spells that aren't in MitS's spell lists that I've
heard of before and am finding in the grimoire..are these still supposed
to be used or are they replaced by other spells or what? Can someone
help me out with it?

2. I've also found the spell for the mageswords in the shadowrun
supplemental...how do I make that a permanent object that they can turn
on and off? Would it be considered a Weapon Foci or would it be a spell
lock or what?

3. any advice on how to speed up the game as far as casting spells goes
so that there aren't as many die rolls?

4. Any major ways that characters can abuse magic easily? (I already
found one that I thought was pretty bad...Taking the Pain Editor
Bioware...with it activated you ignore stun damage altogether until you
turn it off...the damage is still taken but it doesn't effect you even
at deadly stun level...that would let you pretty much cast anything
without worrying about getting wiped out by the drain correct?

Derek

Message no. 79 Derek Hyde wrote:

>
> 4. Any major ways that characters can abuse magic easily? (I already
> found one that I thought was pretty bad...Taking the Pain Editor
> Bioware...with it activated you ignore stun damage altogether until you
> turn it off...the damage is still taken but it doesn't effect you even
> at deadly stun level...that would let you pretty much cast anything
> without worrying about getting wiped out by the drain correct?

You are correct, to a point. Characters with Pain Editors will ignore
stun damage. But there are some drawbacks. 1) Pain Editors are bioware
which will effect the characters magic rating. In turn, high power
spells may be more likely to do physical damage. 2) Players with Pain
Editors don't track their own damage until the Editors are overcome,
thus they won't know how much damage they are at. If a player is at
deadly stun and doesn't realize it, the next drain he takes will be
physical damage.

--
Iridios
--
From:The Top 100 Things I'd Do
If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord
(http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html)

If one of my dungeon guards begins expressing concern over the
conditions in the beautiful princess' cell, I will immediately
transfer him to a less people-oriented position.

Used Without Permission

Message no. 80 > 1. there's a lot of spells that aren't in MitS's spell lists that I've
> heard of before and am finding in the grimoire..are these still supposed
> to be used or are they replaced by other spells or what? Can someone
> help me out with it?
>

Grimoire....is that second edition magic reference book? If so you should
know a fair number of spells from 2nd edition did not make it into third
edition. Urban Renewel and Ram are examples of such. Other spells like
Detect Object need to be specialized in 3rd edition where as thier 2nd ed
counter parts can be generalized on purchase and have the object specified
when used.

> 2. I've also found the spell for the mageswords in the shadowrun
> supplemental...how do I make that a permanent object that they can turn
> on and off? Would it be considered a Weapon Foci or would it be a spell
> lock or what?

Magic isn't really turned on or off though with an expendable spell foci you
can charge an item with a number of spell effects and they run out and are
not quickened/anchored. Now if a magesword is a weapon foci it has to be
bonded to be used and then it's always a weapon foci. Foci of such nature
only give bonuses against awakened critters/characters, an automatic effect.

>
> 3. any advice on how to speed up the game as far as casting spells goes
> so that there aren't as many die rolls?
>

There really isn't alot of rolls, no more so than combat rolls. Once you get
the hang of the system for magic they'll go quicker.

> 4. Any major ways that characters can abuse magic easily? (I already
> found one that I thought was pretty bad...Taking the Pain Editor
> Bioware...with it activated you ignore stun damage altogether until you
> turn it off...the damage is still taken but it doesn't effect you even
> at deadly stun level...that would let you pretty much cast anything
> without worrying about getting wiped out by the drain correct?
>

Abuse:

Some players try to find loop holes in every rule like the bioware example
you give.

Like another said bioware DOES effect your magic rating even if it is not a
tangible loss of a point rather bioware impedes magic use by a certain
degree based on your bio index. So you may as well have lost the point(s)
tangibly plus geas cannot regain points impeded by bioware.

Another drawback is well like stated you as gm keep track of his damage only
stating his true damage if he monitors his own condition or the combat is
over and the editor is turned off. With mages casting alot of spells it's
very easy to see stun damage spilling over into physical damage. Just
remember the pain editor does negate the effects of said damage but you
still sustain that damage. And quite frankly it can come back to bite you on
the ass. :)

Message no. 81 Ok my main question is about the spells like bullet barrier and the
other ones like that because I've got people that want to use them but I
won't let them have them unless there's a specific reason that they took
them out or they just didn't get reprinted....

Derek

Message no. 82 > Ok my main question is about the spells like bullet barrier and the
> other ones like that because I've got people that want to use them but I
> won't let them have them unless there's a specific reason that they took
> them out or they just didn't get reprinted....
>

Sounds like specialized spells that got generalized/renamed. Look for the
following spells:

Physical Barrier
Limited Physical Barrier (Against a specific type ie bullet)
Armor (Personal physical barrier)
Limited Armor (Against a specific type ie bullet)

Message no. 83 <snipt!(TM)>
> Sounds like specialized spells that got
generalized/renamed. Look for the following spells:
>
> Physical Barrier
> Limited Physical Barrier (Against a specific type ie
bullet)
> Armor (Personal physical barrier)
> Limited Armor (Against a specific type ie bullet)

Actually, Armour was only the equivalent of Personal
Physical Barrier in the first (few?) printing. All
errataed versions have a different version of Armour.
Personal Physical Barrier does not exist as such in
SR3, although there's nothing to say you couldn't
remake it using the rules from MitS.

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

If you SMELL what the DOC' is COOKING!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Message no. 84 Lol I only meant it as a description, didn't know there was an actual spell
called personal physical barrier...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rand Ratinac" <docwagon101@*****.com>
To: <shadowrn@*********.com>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: Magic Questions

> <snipt!(TM)>
> > Sounds like specialized spells that got
> generalized/renamed. Look for the following spells:
> >
> > Physical Barrier
> > Limited Physical Barrier (Against a specific type ie
> bullet)
> > Armor (Personal physical barrier)
> > Limited Armor (Against a specific type ie bullet)
>
> Actually, Armour was only the equivalent of Personal
> Physical Barrier in the first (few?) printing. All
> errataed versions have a different version of Armour.
> Personal Physical Barrier does not exist as such in
> SR3, although there's nothing to say you couldn't
> remake it using the rules from MitS.
>
> ====> Doc'
> (aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka
Doc' Vader)
>
> .sig Sauer
>
> If you SMELL what the DOC' is COOKING!!!
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email
and Music Charts
> http://uk.my.yahoo.com
>
>

Message no. 85 > Lol I only meant it as a description, didn't know
there was an actual spell called personal physical
barrier...

But dude, there USED to be - so what you said could
get confusing for people who know SRII, but not SR3.

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

If you SMELL what the DOC' is COOKING!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Message no. 86 > But dude, there USED to be - so what you said could
> get confusing for people who know SRII, but not SR3.
>

well at least I know not to make the mistake again and learned a few more
spells from the last edition, I started playing SR with 3rd edition so I'm
not 100% familiar with all the old stuff. :)

Message no. 87 > > Lol I only meant it as a description, didn't know
there was an actual spell called personal physical
barrier...
>
> But dude, there USED to be - so what you said could
get confusing for people who know SRII, but not SR3.

Uh, just ignore me completely, Jonathan. I TOTALLY
misread your message.

Somehow I thought you said "mean", not "know". :)

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

If you SMELL what the DOC' is COOKING!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Message no. 88 Derek Hyde writes:

> Ok I'm gonna sound stupid here but I'm just starting to let characters
> play mages in my game since they were all fairly new to shadowrun and
> there's enough rules for them to try to memorize let alone having me (who
> never played a mage before and I just started GMing as well).

Watch out for rigging and decking, then... <evil GM sigh> At least magic
uses more or less the same system as ranged combat ... unlike rigging and
decking which are wholely different.

> Anyway what my point is is that I've got MitS and the Grimoire..

You might want to ignore the Grimything, it's only going to cause confusion
and complications.

> 1. there's a lot of spells that aren't in MitS's spell lists that I've
> heard of before and am finding in the grimoire..are these still supposed
> to be used or are they replaced by other spells or what? Can someone
> help me out with it?

As Jonathon and Doc point out, the vast majority of old SRII spells have
been somehow rationalised in SR3. So Ram still exists, but is now Ram
(Object), with each object (eg door) being a different spell. Mana
Dart/Bolt/Lance/Whatever have now been replaced with a variable Damage Level
Manabolt. The specialised barrier spells have become Limited Barrier, which
works against any one attack (eg bullets, blast, etc. as seen in the
Grimything). It's usually possible to find correlations this way for most
spells. OTOH, Awakenings spells most often got turfed as they were
problematic (eg X-Ray Vision).

> 2. I've also found the spell for the mageswords in the shadowrun
> supplemental...how do I make that a permanent object that they can turn
> on and off? Would it be considered a Weapon Foci or would it be a spell
> lock or what?

Er, not knowing what the magesword is, I cannot really comment. Magic in SR,
however, can be made "on/off" in a couple of ways. The best is through the
Metamagical technique of Anchoring, which even allows mundanes to switch the
things on and off. Spell Locks no longer exist in SR3, and have been replaced
with Sustaining Foci. While Spell Locks, once created, allowed a spell to be
turned on or off more or less at will, a Sustaining Focus only sustains a
spell once the spell has been cast. Turning it off neccesitates recasting the
spell. A weapon focus (as with any focus except an anchoring one) is only
usable by the person it is bonded to. They may activate and deactivate it at
will, however, it only works for them.

> 3. any advice on how to speed up the game as far as casting spells goes
> so that there aren't as many die rolls?

Spellcasting is actually quicker than ranged combat. It couldn't be sped up
much more. A typical Manabolt requires a single roll to cast (Sorcery dice
plus Spell Pool), and a single roll to resist (Willpower). This is better
than ranged combat, which has Dodge rolls, too. Once you factor in Centering
and other complicated Metamagic, however, things get comparable to normal
ranged combat.

> 4. Any major ways that characters can abuse magic easily?

Besides the Pain Editor that you mentioned, look out for the Trauma
Dampener. It reduces the Damage Level of Stun damage (ie Drain) by one full
category. So in essense, magicians who get their Drain down to Light take no
Drain. Pretty good. OTOH, as has been mentioned a few times, bioware has
enough inherent drawbacks that this is OK in my view.

Also, be sure to make use of the Focus Addiction rules, otherwise you'll end
up with magical powerhouses with a dozen enhancing spells in Sustaining Foci
and stats three times the sammies.

The Enhance Aim spell can be put to munchkinous use with a little thought,
too, as it combines with various other targeting enhancing abilities and
gear.

Jonathan writes:

> Grimoire....is that second edition magic reference book?

There was a Grimything for SR1 (14th Edition), and for SRII (15th Edition).

> Magic isn't really turned on or off though with an expendable spell foci
> you can charge an item with a number of spell effects and they run out and
> are not quickened/anchored.

Huhn? Expendable Spell Foci just add more dice to your Sorcery Test (or
Drain I think, too). That's it.

> <Weapon Foci> Foci of such nature only give bonuses against awakened
> critters/characters, an automatic effect.

Huhn? Weapon foci give a direct bonus to the users relevent Armed Combat
skill (eg Edged Weapons for a weapon focus sword). In addition, they also
have a number of bonuses against various awakened critters, in particular
critters with Immunity to Normal Weapons and Regeneration.

--
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. 89 <snipt!(TM)>
> > 4. Any major ways that characters can abuse magic
easily?
>
> Besides the Pain Editor that you mentioned, look out
for the Trauma Dampener. It reduces the Damage Level
of Stun damage (ie Drain) by one full category. So in
essense, magicians who get their Drain down to Light
take no Drain. Pretty good. OTOH, as has been
mentioned a few times, bioware has enough inherent
drawbacks that this is OK in my view.

Actually, Damion, it reduces stun damage by one BOX
(and changes one box of all physical damage taken from
physical to stun, which could potentially cancel out
all its drain reduction benefits), so it's only REALLY
effective when the mage reduces his drain to light.
Otherwise it's only somewhat effective, and hardly
abusive to my mind.

> Also, be sure to make use of the Focus Addiction
rules, otherwise you'll end up with magical
powerhouses with a dozen enhancing spells in
Sustaining Foci and stats three times the sammies.

Forget that - make use of magical security. Anyone who
goes around with heaps of foci active is just asking
for trouble.

> The Enhance Aim spell can be put to munchkinous use
with a little thought, too, as it combines with
various other targeting enhancing abilities and gear.

Eh?

I thought it WASN'T cumulative with most targeting
items.

<snipt!(TM)>
> Huhn? Weapon foci give a direct bonus to the users
relevent Armed Combat skill (eg Edged Weapons for a
weapon focus sword). In addition, they also have a
number of bonuses against various awakened critters,
in particular critters with Immunity to Normal Weapons
and Regeneration.
> Damion Milliken

Um, if you're wondering what Damion means exactly,
they basically counteract those powers. As they're
magical weapons, not normal weapons, Immunity to
Normal Weapons has no effect. Regeneration is simply
nullified by any magical weapon. Such damage has to be
healed normally.

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

If you SMELL what the DOC' is COOKING!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Message no. 90 According to Derek Hyde, on Mon, 12 Nov 2001 the word on the street was...

> Ok my main question is about the spells like bullet barrier and the
> other ones like that because I've got people that want to use them but I
> won't let them have them unless there's a specific reason that they took
> them out or they just didn't get reprinted....

Bullet Barrier didn't get taken out, all the Barrier variants got replaced
by a single spell description covering all of them in order to save space
in the book :) See Limited Physical Barrier on page 147 of MITS.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Come down here and I'll show you the wrong way.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Message no. 91 According to Derek Hyde, on Mon, 12 Nov 2001 the word on the street was...

> 1. there's a lot of spells that aren't in MitS's spell lists that I've
> heard of before and am finding in the grimoire..are these still supposed
> to be used or are they replaced by other spells or what? Can someone
> help me out with it?

Some have been replaced, others removed entirely. If you want the latter
anyway, you could use the MITS spell design rules to recreate them,
adjusting their game mechanics as necessary (mostly, this will be things
like adding a limit to the number of successes for non-resisted spells).
AFAIK the main reasons spells were removed was because they caused
problems, either with game rules or with rationalization in the game world.
Both are usually easy to solve, at least for your own game.

> 3. any advice on how to speed up the game as far as casting spells goes
> so that there aren't as many die rolls?

Use the rules. In the beginning you'll have to keep looking in the book to
see how the procedure went again, but this is the case with all game rules;
you'll get used to them soon enough. Typically, spellcasting doesn't take
more time than resolving a round of melee combat.

Another bit of advice, not really to speed up the game directly, but it
might help nonetheless, is to urge players to only create aspected
magicians for their first Awakened character. This means they will have
less rules to learn, and so are less likely to get them confused and slow
down the game while the GM explains/looks it up.

> 4. Any major ways that characters can abuse magic easily? (I already
> found one that I thought was pretty bad...Taking the Pain Editor
> Bioware...with it activated you ignore stun damage altogether until you
> turn it off...the damage is still taken but it doesn't effect you even
> at deadly stun level...that would let you pretty much cast anything
> without worrying about getting wiped out by the drain correct?

Yes, but if you've ever used a pain editor for a character you should have
discovered they are a double-edged sword. Sure, you don't get wound
penalties and don't fall unconscious, but you don't know how far you're
wounded. The first indication you get that you're wounded at all (if you
withstand knockdown) could be the GM telling you that everything goes black
and your DocWagon bracelet activates...

There's a quick trick, but you don't want to use it when you suspect you
may be heavily wounded: use a Free Action to switch off the pain editor,
and your next one to switch it back on. This runs you the risk that you
fall unconscious the moment you turn the thing off, though...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Come down here and I'll show you the wrong way.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Message no. 92 [Rand Ratinac] writes:

> Actually, Damion, it reduces stun damage by one BOX (and changes one box
> of all physical damage taken from physical to stun, which could
> cancel out all its drain reduction benefits), so it's only REALLY effective
> when the mage reduces his drain to light. Otherwise it's only somewhat
> effective, and hardly abusive to my mind.

Oh yeah! Sorry ... nobody's used one in my game for about four years ... I'd
forgotten exactly what they did ;-).

> > The Enhance Aim spell can be put to munchkinous use with a little
> > thought, too, as it combines with various other targeting enhancing
> > abilities and gear.
>
> I thought it WASN'T cumulative with most targeting items.

Well, I won't go and say for sure (ie, it's been a while since anyone used
it in my games <grin> ...) but I thought that it was possible to use a laser
sight and/or image magnification with this spell (unlike with smartlinks).
This really makes for kickbutt Improved Firearms Physical Mages: lots and
lots of dice, and really really low TNs.

> Regeneration is simply nullified by any magical weapon. Such damage has to
> be healed normally.

Are you sure? I always thought that there was some bizzare test that had to
be made ... but I won't go and say for sure ;-).

--
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. 93 > > > The Enhance Aim spell can be put to munchkinous
use with a little thought, too, as it combines with
various other targeting enhancing abilities and gear.
> >
> > I thought it WASN'T cumulative with most targeting
items.
>
> Well, I won't go and say for sure (ie, it's been a
while since anyone used it in my games <grin> ...) but
I thought that it was possible to use a laser sight
and/or image magnification with this spell (unlike
with smartlinks). This really makes for kickbutt
Improved Firearms Physical Mages: lots and lots of
dice, and really really low TNs.

You're probably right. Somehow I was thinking it
doesn't work with ANY cyberware. Maybe it's just
smartlinks it doesn't work with. Anyway, if I'd got
vision mag and I'd munched out with a quickened or
sustained enhance aim spell, I wouldn't use the laser
sight, because (unless it's integral) the concealment
modifier is too hefty for smaller weapons, the range
usually sucks for larger weapons and using it could
give you away (no game effect for that, but it doesn't
stop the GM ruling that someone spotted your laser
sight).

> > Regeneration is simply nullified by any magical
weapon. Such damage has to be healed normally.
>
> Are you sure? I always thought that there was some
bizzare test that had to be made ... but I won't go
and say for sure ;-).
> Damion Milliken

90% sure. Normally you roll 1d6 for regen if you take
deadly damage and on anything but a 1, you regen fully
the next round. On a 1, you're dead. Anything less and
you heal fully the next round. Right? That's the only
test I know of as far as regeneration goes. To the
best of my recollection, a weapon focus completely
nullifies regeneration.

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

If you SMELL what the DOC' is COOKING!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Message no. 94 > > > Regeneration is simply nullified by any magical
> weapon. Such damage has to be healed normally.
> >
> > Are you sure? I always thought that there was some
> bizzare test that had to be made ... but I won't go
> and say for sure ;-).
> > Damion Milliken
>
> 90% sure. Normally you roll 1d6 for regen if you take
> deadly damage and on anything but a 1, you regen fully
> the next round. On a 1, you're dead. Anything less and
> you heal fully the next round. Right? That's the only
> test I know of as far as regeneration goes. To the
> best of my recollection, a weapon focus completely
> nullifies regeneration.

I'm assuming that this part is about the shapeshifters.....the deal is
NO.....if you take deadly damage from a regular weapon you roll a D6 and
on a 1 you don't instantly regen but you're just like any other person
that's been pushed to deadly....however as soon as they bring you to 1
under deadly your regen will kick back in and you'll be full on the next
combat turn HOWEVER deadly damage from a weapon foci (whether it's all
from a foci or just the last lil bit to push em into deadly) can kill
them outright, you would (quoting from the book) " make an essence test
with a target number equal to twice the force of the focus. If the
shapeshifter achieves no successes on this test the character
automatically dies. Even one success allows the shapeshifter to make a
regeneration test." They also regen physical damage caused by drain at
the rate of one box per minute HOWEVER with what you were talking about
it could be done with silver....if deadly's achieved with silver they
die instantly with a roll of 1 or 2 on 1D6

Message no. 95 > You're probably right. Somehow I was thinking it
> doesn't work with ANY cyberware. Maybe it's just
> smartlinks it doesn't work with. Anyway, if I'd got
> vision mag and I'd munched out with a quickened or
> sustained enhance aim spell, I wouldn't use the laser
> sight, because (unless it's integral) the concealment
> modifier is too hefty for smaller weapons, the range
> usually sucks for larger weapons and using it could
> give you away (no game effect for that, but it doesn't
> stop the GM ruling that someone spotted your laser
> sight).
>

I think it's the mention that LOS spells can't be used with imaging
technology pg.181 SR 3rd ed. (Spell Taregtting)

I guess the confusion is what imaging technology includes since it is rather
vaguely stated.

Message no. 96 <snipt!(TM)>
> I'm assuming that this part is about the
shapeshifters.....the deal is NO.....if you take
deadly damage from a regular weapon you roll a D6 and
on a 1 you don't instantly regen but you're just like
any other person that's been pushed to
deadly....however as soon as they bring you to 1 under
deadly your regen will kick back in and you'll be full
on the next combat turn HOWEVER deadly damage from a
weapon foci (whether it's all from a foci or just the
last lil bit to push em into deadly) can kill them
outright, you would (quoting from the book) "make an
essence test with a target number equal to twice the
force of the focus. If the shapeshifter achieves no
successes on this test the character automatically
dies. Even one success allows the shapeshifter to make
a regeneration test." They also regen physical damage
caused by drain at the rate of one box per minute
HOWEVER with what you were talking about it could be
done with silver....if deadly's achieved with silver
they die instantly with a roll of 1 or 2 on 1D6

Nah, I was thinking of something different - those are
the rules for PC shapeshifters, right? Where regen has
been toned down? I was thinking of the regen rules for
critters, like vampires. To be precise, I was thinking
of the SRII rules. I can't remember if they've been
altered to be more in line with what you've just said
as of SR3. If you have the critters book, you can
check, though.

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

If you SMELL what the DOC' is COOKING!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Message no. 97 <snipt!(TM)>
> I think it's the mention that LOS spells can't be
used with imaging technology pg.181 SR 3rd ed. (Spell
Taregtting)
>
> I guess the confusion is what imaging technology
includes since it is rather vaguely stated.

Actually, IIRC, it's rather explicitly stated what
Enhance Aim can and can't be used with in its description.

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

If you SMELL what the DOC' is COOKING!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Message no. 98 ---- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan" <jhogan@**********.nf.net>
To: <shadowrn@*********.com>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: Magic Questions

>
> > You're probably right. Somehow I was thinking it
> > doesn't work with ANY cyberware. Maybe it's just
> > smartlinks it doesn't work with. Anyway, if I'd got
> > vision mag and I'd munched out with a quickened or
> > sustained enhance aim spell, I wouldn't use the laser
> > sight, because (unless it's integral) the concealment
> > modifier is too hefty for smaller weapons, the range
> > usually sucks for larger weapons and using it could
> > give you away (no game effect for that, but it doesn't
> > stop the GM ruling that someone spotted your laser
> > sight).
> >
>
> I think it's the mention that LOS spells can't be used with imaging
> technology pg.181 SR 3rd ed. (Spell Taregtting)
>
> I guess the confusion is what imaging technology includes since it is
rather
> vaguely stated.

I have always been under the impression that "imaging technology" referred
to electronic magnification not lenses or fiber optics. I believe you can
use the latter with spells, but not the former, which is orfcourse the more
common.

Munge

Message no. 99 <CHOP>
> Nah, I was thinking of something different - those are
> the rules for PC shapeshifters, right? Where regen has
> been toned down? I was thinking of the regen rules for
> critters, like vampires. To be precise, I was thinking
> of the SRII rules. I can't remember if they've been
> altered to be more in line with what you've just said
> as of SR3. If you have the critters book, you can
> check, though.

Only thing I've got on the critters is that which came with the SR3 GM
screen

Message no. 100 > Only thing I've got on the critters is that which
came with the SR3 GM screen

That's the one. If my brain isn't completely on
holidays, there's a section at the start detailing all
the different critter powers that weren't in the main
book. Should be there.

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

If you SMELL what the DOC' is COOKING!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Message no. 101 Ahh....good plan.....I'll look in the morning when I'm awake enough to
actually search anything out....for now I would pretty much go with the
assumption that if you're right and the critter one is better than the
one for the shapeshifters then I would assume that it's the same without
the drawback on the silver.....I don't think you could improve the deal
with the regen much more than the SS's have it

> -----Original Message-----
> From: shadowrn-admin@*********.com
[mailto:shadowrn-admin@*********.com]
> On Behalf Of Rand Ratinac
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 10:50 PM
> To: shadowrn@*********.com
> Subject: RE: Magic Questions
>
> > Only thing I've got on the critters is that which
> came with the SR3 GM screen
>
> That's the one. If my brain isn't completely on
> holidays, there's a section at the start detailing all
> the different critter powers that weren't in the main
> book. Should be there.
>
> ====> Doc'
> (aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner,
aka
> Doc' Vader)
>
> .sig Sauer
>
> If you SMELL what the DOC' is COOKING!!!
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to
Email
> and Music Charts
> http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Message no. 102 > Ahh....good plan.....I'll look in the morning when
> I'm awake enough to
> actually search anything out....for now I would
> pretty much go with the
> assumption that if you're right and the critter one
> is better than the
> one for the shapeshifters then I would assume that
> it's the same without
> the drawback on the silver.....I don't think you
> could improve the deal
> with the regen much more than the SS's have it

Huh...my memory is shot.

Even back in SRII they got to make a test to see if
the focus would negate the regeneration power or not.

Never mind me. :)

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

If you SMELL what the DOC' is COOKING!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Message no. 103 <sliced & diced>
ok here's the definitive answer straight from the book

they're EXACTLY the same as what I gave for the shapeshifters EXCEPT
that if they go deadly from massive damage they do a regen test and they
die on a 1 or a 2 they still regen damage done by a weapon foci unless
it's deadly then they do the essence test blah blah blah blah blah

Message no. 104 John writes:

> > I think it's the mention that LOS spells can't be used with imaging
> > technology pg.181 SR 3rd ed. (Spell Taregtting)
> >
> > I guess the confusion is what imaging technology includes since it is
> > rather vaguely stated.
>
> I have always been under the impression that "imaging technology" referred
> to electronic magnification not lenses or fiber optics. I believe you can
> use the latter with spells, but not the former, which is orfcourse the more
> common.

I don't think that it's to do with whether LOS spells can be _used_ with
imaging technology, but rather whether they can be _cast_ using imaging
technology. The answer to the latter is no (unless it's purely optical),
while the answer to the former is yes. For example, if I cast Enhance Aim, I
may only cast it on targets that I am able to see naturally with my own
eyes, or optical extentions of them. OTOH, the recipient of the Enhance Aim
spell may use electronic magnification and thermographic imaging to shoot
somebody, and still gain the bonuses of my spell.

--
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. 105 1) When going on an astral quest it states that you can use astral pool or
karma pool dice. What is karma pool dice?

2) Is there any way to reduce the cost of bonding an item after it has been
created? In second edition one could do an astral perception and reduce the
cost that way.

3) I have a PC with a spell design 9. He has been creating spells and using
them. He now wants to sell them to the general product. Any suggestion on
how to handle that?

John
Life is to short to drink cheap beer.

Message no. 106 According to Johnflang@***.com, on Mon, 25 Feb 2002 the word on the street was...

> 1) When going on an astral quest it states that you can use astral pool
> or karma pool dice. What is karma pool dice?

You can use Karma Pool to buy extra dice for tests; presumably, this is what is
meant.

> 3) I have a PC with a spell design 9. He has been creating spells and
> using them. He now wants to sell them to the general product. Any
> suggestion on how to handle that?

I'd have the character charge whatever he wants for them (though I'd suggest
using the spell formula prices to base this on) and then having the GM decide
how much the character makes each month. Basically what it comes down to is that
the GM decides whether what you're asking is reasonable, if many people want
what you're selling, and then take a stab at it :) A way might be to roll, I
don't know, 1D6 each month and assuming that many people bought a spell off you?
Or perhaps 1D6-2 per spell you have for sale.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Dat is de kip voor het ei spannen.
-> 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. 107 Gurth wrote:

> According to Johnflang@***.com, on Mon, 25 Feb 2002 the word on the street was...
>
> > 3) He now wants to sell them to the general product. Any suggestion on how to
>
> handle that?
>
> I'd have the character charge whatever he wants for them (though I'd suggest
> using the spell formula prices to base this on) and then having the GM decide
> how much the character makes each month.

I guess selling also depends on the methods you use. If you go straight to your
talismonger and tell him to put it on sale, I wouldn't allow more than one sold every
month. If that Talsimonger is a good one he may have 50 Spellcasters as customers, 25
may be of the right tradtition; how many spells does your PC buy a month, not
counting on the kinds of spells you purchase?
On the other hand, if you hand a license to a spell merchandising company that sure
exists in SR, you could collect some money simply by owning the license. But this
would mean it isn't allowed higher than Force 3 (as far as I remember SR law at
least) and would be limited to non combat spells.

only some thoughts Tommy

Message no. 108 From: <Johnflang@***.com>
> 3) I have a PC with a spell design 9. He has been creating spells
and using
> them. He now wants to sell them to the general product. Any
suggestion on
> how to handle that?
>
First of all you should make the PC aware that marketing himself as a
spell design genius (SR3 p. 99), could make it very hard for him to
remain an anonymous shadowrunner - being recognized (or having your
spells recognized) on the job is a good way to ruin a perfectly good
shadowrunning career! Secondly the PC should remember that all spells,
foci and spirits of Force 3 or higher are considered illegal (SR3
p.305) and as such he could be getting himself in to trouble with the
law if he actually tries to sell anything remotely useful;)

\cth

Message no. 109 Sometime, somwhere down the timeline, Gurth whispered:
> According to Johnflang@***.com, on Mon, 25 Feb 2002 the word on the street
was...

> 1) When going on an astral quest it states that you can use astral pool
> or karma pool dice. What is karma pool dice?

> You can use Karma Pool to buy extra dice for tests; presumably, this is
what is
> meant.

Sometime, somwhere down the timeline, Tommy Lindner whispered:
> Gurth wrote:
>
> > According to Johnflang@***.com, on Mon, 25 Feb 2002 the word on the
street was...
> >
> > > 3) He now wants to sell them to the general product. Any suggestion
on how to >
> > handle that?
> >
> > I'd have the character charge whatever he wants for them (though I'd
suggest
> > using the spell formula prices to base this on) and then having the GM
decide
> > how much the character makes each month.
>
> I guess selling also depends on the methods you use. If you go straight to
your
> talismonger and tell him to put it on sale, I wouldn't allow more than one
sold every
> month. If that Talsimonger is a good one he may have 50 Spellcasters as
customers, 25
> may be of the right tradtition; how many spells does your PC buy a month,
not
> counting on the kinds of spells you purchase?

And if he goes to his Fixer? Of course, the price would be WAY down, but
he'd be able to sell more. Wadcha all think?

> On the other hand, if you hand a license to a spell merchandising company
that sure
> exists in SR, you could collect some money simply by owning the license.
<snip>

Probably an "associate" of Wuxing, Inc. (What else do they do, anyway? I
never really saw much of them except for what''s in SR3)

-- GAK THE GREAT

I don't suffer from insanity,
I enjoy every moment of it!

Message no. 110 According to Gak The Great, on Tue, 26 Feb 2002 the word on the street was...

> And if he goes to his Fixer? Of course, the price would be WAY down, but
> he'd be able to sell more. Wadcha all think?

My question would be: why are you selling something you made yourself as if
you've stolen it? Fixers are a handy way to get rid of stuff you don't want
traced back to you, but as a result they pay less than what you could get
for it.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Dat is de kip voor het ei spannen.
-> 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. 111 Sometime, somwhere down the timeline, Gurth whispered:
> According to Gak The Great, on Tue, 26 Feb 2002 the word on the street
was...
>
> > And if he goes to his Fixer? Of course, the price would be WAY down, but
> > he'd be able to sell more. Wadcha all think?
>
> My question would be: why are you selling something you made yourself as
if
> you've stolen it? Fixers are a handy way to get rid of stuff you don't
want
> traced back to you, but as a result they pay less than what you could get
> for it.
>

To get rid of something illegal I made myself? Like Force 4+ Spells. And I
was actually thinking of "surplus" spells thet the talismonger didn't want.
How do talismongers get their magikal stuff anyway? some they gather in the
wild, but is there something like a talismonger network?

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer