Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Steve Kenson <TalonMail@***.COM>
Subject: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:28:16 -0500
First off, I wouldn't touch the "FASAMike vs. Steve Kenson" subject line with
a ten-foot pole... <grin>

Secondly, everything presented here is entirely My Humble Opinion and does
not reflect on the opinions of FASA Corporation, blah, blah, blah. This IS
how I would like to see these things go in SR3, but that doesn't necessarily
make it so. Mike Mulvihill is the developer, his word goes.

That said, here are some thoughts on the various magical threads that have
come up lately, in no particular order:

CONTROLLING ELEMENTALS

The way I handle it is LOS must be maintained between the elemental and its
master. If the mage can see the spirit OR the elemental can see the mage, it
remains under control and continues doing whatever it was last ordered to do.
Blinking, turning around, having a bag thrown over your head, etc. does not
affect your control over the spirit, so long as it can still see you.
Dropping an opaque wall between a mage and an elemental WOULD cut off LOS.
The elemental vanishes back to the metaplanes on its next action: POOF!

SPELLS IN ASTRAL SPACE

This is a complex one. As it says "astral space precludes ranged combat."
That means there are no astral missile weapons or astral guns. You CAN still
cast spells astrally at astral things, but basically the spell charges over
to the target and attacks it in astral (melee) combat. So TECHNICALLY, it's
not a "ranged attack." Hopefully we can clarify this in SR3 and the Big Book
o' Magic.

If a spell wins an astral combat with an astral target, it has its normal
effect on the target. Physical spells affect the target's physical body
(wherever it might be). Physical spells simply cannot affect astral entities
with no physical body (like spirits that are not materialized). Tossing a
Transform spell (or Invisibility, for that matter) at a spirit is just a
waste of effort. Even a Mana Invisibility spell won't work on a spirit, since
the spell is designed to make a PHYSICAL object invisible.

CRITTER POWERS

Some critter powers work because of the unique astral/physical interaction
between the critter's astral form and its physical body. Others are purely
manipulations of astral energy. The physical powers (Flame Projection,
Engulf, etc.) cannot affect astral beings. The astral powers, like Influence,
can affect astral targets, IMHO, just like spells, provided the critter can
assense the target. If you want to fight the power's effects in astral
combat, treat it like a spell with a Force equal to the critter's Essence.
See all the stuff about spells below for more.

SPELL TARGETING

The way all spells and other sorcery effects are targeted is through what I
call a "magical link." This can take two forms: being able to sense the
target with a primary sense, or having some integral part of the target in
your possession.

In the first case, the sorcerer must be able to see, touch or assense the
target. Using your normal senses, you can use sorcery on anything physical
you can see or touch. Using astral perception, you can use sorcery on
anything (physical or astral) you can assense. Using astral projection, you
can use sorcery on anything astral you can assense.

Forget all of that stuff about "subliminal astral perception" and similar
drek. As far as I'm concerned it needlessly complicates matters. A physical
sorcerer using normal vision to target a spell is NOT astrally active in any
way. The visual image of the target alone provides the magical link. Sorcery
adepts do not have astral perception, nor do they need it to cast or target
spells.

The second case simply uses the rules for ritual links and ritual sorcery in
the SR rules. Note that you can also target ritual sorcery using the first
method of direct sensing if the ritual circle can see or touch the target
(i.e., they're right there in the circle) or if they have an "astral
spotter." In the later case, the whole circle is treated like a single
spellcaster in a state of astral perception (i.e., they can target anything,
physical or astral, that the spotter can assense).

SUSTAINING SPELLS

I'm not sure SR says one way or another, but LOS is NOT required to sustain a
spell, only to cast it. Once the spell is up and running, so long as the
caster concentrates (and takes the +2 TN modifier) the spell keeps going. If
the caster falls asleep, is knocked out, or dies, the spell ends. The caster
can also drop the spell at any time. Otherwise, the only theoretical range
limit on sustaining is that the target of the spell cannot leave the
atmosphere (which would end the spell). Otherwise, the caster can sustain the
spell from ANYWHERE. Take ritual sorcery spells as an example. You can use
ritual sorcery on someone half a world a way. If the spell is successful, you
can sustain it.

SPELL LOCKS

Spell locks are going to get a through once-over in SR3. Mike hates them and
they're just too damn complex for what they're meant to do. Two things I'd
like to do are: 1) eliminate the whole "mundanes can't see or interact with
spell locks" thing because it's caused way too much confusion; 2) make locks
more like they were in 1st edition SR (expendable) rather than the on/off
magic items they've become in SR2. I'd like to reserve the on/off option for
anchorings (which are also going to get reworked some to make them simpler).
I'd like anchorings to be more like SR2 spell locks are now, with the
additional option of adding links that turn the spell on or off.

As for masking spell locks, I'd say you have to mask against the lock's
rating (1) or the spell's Force, whichever is GREATER. So if you have a spell
of Force 2+ locked, you have to mask the entire Force of the spell to hide
it.

SPELL VS. SPELL

There has been some discussion of the apparent conflict between "spells can't
target other spells" and the effects of spells like Barrier and
Shattershield, which APPEAR to target or affect other spells. In truth, they
do not. No spell can target or affect another spell directly. It's a basic
limitation of Sorcery. That's why (for example) there's no "dispel magic"
spell in SR. To directly affect spells, you need to use metamagic.

With a spell like Barrier or Mana Barrier, you have to make a distinction
between the SPELL and its EFFECT. For Barrier, the spell creates a magical
construct of energy (the barrier). Mana Barrier creates an energy field keyed
to astral forms, making the barrier solid against all living and magical
things. Physical Barrier creates a magical "force field" that stops all
physical things. The actual barrier is separate from the spell that creates
it, just like the actual fire created by a manipulation spell is separate
from the spell itself. The BARRIER can be targeted by other spells, such as
Shattershield, but the actual Barrier spell remains in astral space the whole
time and can't be hit with spells (spells don't affect other spells).

The spell vs. spell thing leads into...

GROUNDING

OK, I said it, I'll tell you what I think about it, and may the gods keep any
flame-wars to a minimum...

The key to figuring out grounding is the Spell Targeting stuff I mentioned
above: a spell requires a magical link to be cast. No link, no spell. A
physical sorcerer can affect anything physical he can sense. An astral
sorcerer can affect anything astral he can sense. A dual (astrally
perceiving) sorcerer can affect anything astral or physical he can sense.
Let's look at the specific cases of grounding:

Mundane: This is ANY mundane target, a person, a table, a gun, a plant,
whatever. They key is it is a physical object that is not astrally active. It
either has a passive astral form (for a living thing) or no astral form at
all (for unliving things). A mundane object can only be targeted by a
physical spellcaster, using normal or astral perception. No spellcasting at
mundane targets while astral projecting.

Dual Being: This is a physical being that is astrally active, like a mystic
using astral perception, a dual critter, or a spirit in material form. Dual
beings are the most vulnerable to spellcasting, because they can be targeted
from any side: physical or astral. A physical sorcerer can see and target the
being's physical body, while an astral sorcerer can assense and target the
being's astral form.

Focus: A focus is magical, a living object in a magical sense. An inactive
focus has a passive astral form and is the same as a mundane living object
(above). An active focus has an active astral form and is the same as a dual
being (above).

Spell: Spells cannot be targeted by other spells. Period. Objects and
materials created by spells may be targeted by other spells normally. This
means (IMHO) you CANNOT ground through sustained or quickened spells in any
way, nor can you ground through a character casting a spell, unless he
happens to be using astral perception at the time. You can ground through a
spell lock or a spell anchor because those are foci (see above).

Astral Construct: Purely astral constructs like wards or other astral
barriers exist only in astral space, so they can only be targeted by mana
spells, and only by sorcerers using astral perception or projection.

Spirit: Spirits in astral form are the same as other astral beings and
constructs (above): they can only be targeted by Mana spells and only by
sorcerers who are astrally active and able to assense the spirit. Spirits in
material form are dual beings (above).

Mixed Targets: So, what happens if you target an area spell on a spell lock
worn by someone in the middle of a group? Good question. In the case of area
spells, determine the caster's magical link to each potential target in the
area of effect to determine if they are a valid target for the spell. If
there's no magical link, then that target is not affected.

Example 1: a team of five runners is in a warehouse. Three are mundanes. One
is a shamanic adept using astral perception. One is a mage wearing an active
spell lock, with a water elemental in astral form awaiting her commands. An
astrally projecting security mage ghosts through the wall of the warehouse
from behind and spots the runners. They don't see him. He decides to target
the mage's spell lock with a Powerball and lets fly. All of the runners are
within the radius of the spell.

The spell strikes the focus and easily overcomes it in astral combat. The
powerball grounds through the spell lock and the gamemaster considers the
effect of the spell on each valid target in the spell's area:

* The spell lock's physical form (a gold ring) is instantly destroyed, it
turns to dust with a faint "POP!"
* The mage wearing the spell lock is not astrally active. Neither are the
three mundane runners. They are not valid targets. They are not affected. The
same is true for all of the mundane packing crates and other physical objects
nearby.
* The shamanic adept using astral perception IS astrally active. The spell
affects him normally, and the gamemaster calls for a Spell Resistance Test.
If the shaman had ducked behind a crate just as the security mage entered,
completely hiding him from sight, he would have been an invalid target and
would not have been affected by the spell, even if he was still within its
radius.
* The water elemental is astrally active, making it a valid target, but the
spirit has no physical form. Powerball is a Physical spell, so it cannot
affect the spirit. A tactically poor choice on the part of the security mage,
if he had cast Manaball, the spirit would have been affected as well.

Example 2: Same situation as Example 1, only this time the security mage is
using astral perception and is lying in wait behind a packing crate. He
springs up behind the runners and throws a powerball, centering it on the
spell lock:

* Everything the sec-mage can assense (physical and astral) within the radius
of the spell is a valid target. The water elemental has no physical form, so
it is not affected.

Example 3: Same situation as Example 2, only the sec mage is a little cocky
and he doesn't bother using astral perception to check out the situation.
Using only his physical sight, he pops up and tosses a powerball.

* All physical objects the sec-mage can see are valid targets. The astral
water elemental cannot be seen by the mage and is not a valid target (and
wouldn't be affected by a powerball, anyway).

Damaging Manipulations: What about grounding damaging manipulation spells?
The short answer is: you can't. Unlike combat spells, damaging manipulations
ground at the CASTER'S location, creating the elemental medium of the spell.
The caster then directs that matter or energy at the target of the spell. You
have to be in physical form to cast a damaging manipulation. Otherwise, it
follows all of the rules above. Since DMs are by definition physical spells,
they cannot affect purely astral beings. If the sec-mage in the above
examples tossed Flame Bomb instead of Powerball, he could have done so while
astrally perceiving or in physical form, but not while astrally projecting.
The spell would have affected all physical targets in the area of effect
without the need of a magical link (since the spell creates a real explosion
of fire, which works just like any mundane explosion), but the purely astral
water elemental would not have been affected, despite it's Vulnerability to
fire.

I hope this helps clarify some things, including my plans for SR3. Your
feedback is, of course, welcome.

Steve K.
Message no. 2
From: Max Rible <slothman@*********.ORG>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:53:33 -0800
At 16:28 11/5/97 -0500, Steve Kenson wrote:
>SPELL TARGETING
>
>The way all spells and other sorcery effects are targeted is through what I
>call a "magical link." This can take two forms: being able to sense the
>target with a primary sense,
>In the first case, the sorcerer must be able to see, touch or assense the
>target.

Would this work for
(a) someone who has cyberware installed to let them sense objects with
ultrasound?
(b) someone who has had a cyberware radar system installed (probably at ruinous
Essence cost)?
(c) someone under a Hypersenses spell to give them bat-like sonar?

>SUSTAINING SPELLS
>
> Once the spell is up and running, so long as the
>caster concentrates (and takes the +2 TN modifier) the spell keeps going. If
>the caster falls asleep, is knocked out, or dies, the spell ends.

One thing I try to discourage in my games is sustaining spells for a very
long time. Having the mage cast invisibility on multiple people and just
sit there sustaining the spells for hours on end while they recover from
drain doesn't feel right. One thing that might be nice for SR3 magic could
be a quick chart of difficulty numbers for Willpower rolls for sustaining
spells for a given amount of time. (Alternatively, a Willpower roll against
TN 4 where extra successes extend the amount of time...)

>Spell locks are going to get a through once-over in SR3. Mike hates them and
>they're just too damn complex for what they're meant to do. Two things I'd
>like to do are: 1) eliminate the whole "mundanes can't see or interact with
>spell locks" thing because it's caused way too much confusion; 2) make locks
>more like they were in 1st edition SR (expendable) rather than the on/off
>magic items they've become in SR2. I'd like to reserve the on/off option for
>anchorings (which are also going to get reworked some to make them simpler).
>I'd like anchorings to be more like SR2 spell locks are now, with the
>additional option of adding links that turn the spell on or off.

So spell locks would be "turn it off, lose a karma"? "turn it off, lose the
spell and recast next time you want to turn it on"? Being able to turn
Quickened spells on and off would be juicy, certainly; I'd have to see
more details about the Anchoring. (I can't recall how practical it is
to use an Anchoring focus to hold your increase-reflexes spell like you
would a spell lock.) If spell locks became difficult to turn on and off
(i.e., you need to recast your high-drain increase reflexes spell into it
again), Quickenings couldn't be turned on and off, and it's hard to get a
lot of time on your increase reflexes spell into an Anchoring, that will
seriously slow down mages. (It seems that most magicians I've seen use
a spell locked Increase Reflexes as a substitute for wired reflexes with
a reflex trigger.)

--
%% Max Rible %% slothman@*****.com %% http://www.amurgsval.org/~slothman/ %%
%% "Ham is good... Glowing *tattooed* ham is *bad*!" - the Tick %%
Message no. 3
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 21:53:30 +0000
Steve Kenson didst helpfully put his oar in, when he said....
|SUSTAINING SPELLS
|
|I'm not sure SR says one way or another, but LOS is NOT required to sustain a
|spell, only to cast it. Once the spell is up and running, so long as the
|caster concentrates (and takes the +2 TN modifier) the spell keeps going.

GOOD!
That's the way it's always been played 'round here...
When Mike said it wasn't so earlier, I began to wonder if he was on
medication....

:)

|SPELL LOCKS
|
|Spell locks are going to get a through once-over in SR3. Mike hates them and
|they're just too damn complex for what they're meant to do. Two things I'd
|like to do are: 1) eliminate the whole "mundanes can't see or interact with
|spell locks" thing because it's caused way too much confusion; 2) make locks
|more like they were in 1st edition SR (expendable) rather than the on/off
|magic items they've become in SR2. I'd like to reserve the on/off option for
|anchorings (which are also going to get reworked some to make them simpler).
|I'd like anchorings to be more like SR2 spell locks are now, with the
|additional option of adding links that turn the spell on or off.

A slight I agree, and a slight I disagree here....
Making them vulnerable to mundane attack is asking for trouble, IMNSHO...

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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! :( |
Message no. 4
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 17:20:50 +0500
On 5 Nov 97 at 13:53, Max Rible wrote:

> One thing I try to discourage in my games is sustaining spells for a
> very long time. Having the mage cast invisibility on multiple
> people and just sit there sustaining the spells for hours on end
> while they recover from drain doesn't feel right. One thing that
> might be nice for SR3 magic could be a quick chart of difficulty
> numbers for Willpower rolls for sustaining spells for a given amount
> of time. (Alternatively, a Willpower roll against TN 4 where extra
> successes extend the amount of time...)

Or you can do what I do. As long as the mage is sustaining a spell,
the drain damage he took cannot heal.

> >Spell locks are going to get a through once-over in SR3. Mike hates them and
> >they're just too damn complex for what they're meant to do. Two things I'd
> >like to do are: 1) eliminate the whole "mundanes can't see or interact with
> >spell locks" thing because it's caused way too much confusion; 2) make locks
> >more like they were in 1st edition SR (expendable) rather than the on/off
> >magic items they've become in SR2. I'd like to reserve the on/off option for
> >anchorings (which are also going to get reworked some to make them simpler).
> >I'd like anchorings to be more like SR2 spell locks are now, with the
> >additional option of adding links that turn the spell on or off.
>
> So spell locks would be "turn it off, lose a karma"? "turn it off,
> lose the spell and recast next time you want to turn it on"?

I think what spell locks should be is a way to cast a spell with a
free action. You spend the Karma and create the lock. You cast the
spell into the lock. It is held in the lock until activated (using a
free action), at which time the spell goes into affect normally. The
lock is now empty, but still a viable "container". No Karma needs to
be spent again. Just cast another spell into it. This does two
things; it allows the mage to cast a spell quickly in an emergency,
or discretely, and it allows the mage to have an active spell,
without sustaining it. (Thereby forgoing the penalties).

What do you all think about that?

> your high-drain increase reflexes spell into it again), Quickenings
> couldn't be turned on and off, and it's hard to get a lot of time on
> your increase reflexes spell into an Anchoring, that will seriously
> slow down mages. (It seems that most magicians I've seen use a
> spell locked Increase Reflexes as a substitute for wired reflexes
> with a reflex trigger.)

Yes they do, and I don't like it. The very idea of a speed mage is
ludicrous; which is why in my game initiative boost spells do not
exist. Speed is for the sammies, and the physad.

--

===DREKHEAD==================================drekhead@***.net====
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Alley/6990/index.html
=================================================================
Ethernet (n): something used to catch the etherbunny

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 5
From: Tony Rabiola <rabiola@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:23:17 -0600
On 11/05/97 16:28:16 you wrote:
>
>First off, I wouldn't touch the "FASAMike vs. Steve Kenson" subject line
with
>a ten-foot pole... <grin>
>
>Secondly, everything presented here is entirely My Humble Opinion and does
>not reflect on the opinions of FASA Corporation, blah, blah, blah. This IS
>how I would like to see these things go in SR3, but that doesn't necessarily
>make it so. Mike Mulvihill is the developer, his word goes.
>
>That said, here are some thoughts on the various magical threads that have
>come up lately, in no particular order:
>
You're too modest, Steve. Thanx for clearing things up for us in your usual calm, logical
manner,
even for things not so grounded in logic.



Argent

Rabiola@**.netcom.com
Argent - Elven Fixer Extrodinaire
It was hot, the night we burned Chrome...
Message no. 6
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 22:34:54 +0000
And verily, did Drekhead hastily scribble thusly...
|Or you can do what I do. As long as the mage is sustaining a spell,
|the drain damage he took cannot heal.

Eligant, sensible, and exactly how we used to play it....

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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! :( |
Message no. 7
From: Matthew Johnson <mjohnson@*.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:06:57 -0700
This helped to answer some questions, but brought up a few:

I always thought if an area-effect mana spell (e.g., Manaball) was cast
astrally, it would not affect Astral Space as an area-effect spell. It
would only attack one target. Steve Kenson said in his examples on
grounding that the Elemental in that example would be a viable target had
the spell been a mana spell, not Powerball (in that example, a spell lock
was targeted, with an elemental within the area-effect of the spell that
was cast against the spell lock).
Straight forward, if I am astrally perceiving with a "magical link" to all
potential targets, and I cast a -manaball- centered on a focus of any sort,
would -astral- entities within the area of effect be affected? If so,
please address the topic of an area-effect spell cast in astral and it only
affecting a single target. Basically, would manaball in astral space affect
multiple astral entities.

---------------------------
Matthew Johnson
mjohnson@*.arizona.edu
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mjohnson
ftp://150.135.184.121 login: anonymous pw: email
----------------------------
Message no. 8
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 20:16:19 -0500
>One thing I try to discourage in my games is sustaining spells for a very
>long time. Having the mage cast invisibility on multiple people and just
>sit there sustaining the spells for hours on end while they recover from
>drain doesn't feel right. One thing that might be nice for SR3 magic could
>be a quick chart of difficulty numbers for Willpower rolls for sustaining
>spells for a given amount of time. (Alternatively, a Willpower roll against
>TN 4 where extra successes extend the amount of time...)

Well, given that you're not resting if you're sustaining a spell (let alone
several) I'd say you're not going to recover any stun damage during that
time. You're lucky if, after an hour or more, the GM doesn't slap you with
a little more stun damage in the form of fatigue.


losthalo@********.comGoFa6)7(Im6TJt)Fe(7P!ShMoB4/19.2Bk!cBkc8MBV6sM3ZG
oPuTeiClbMehC6a23=n4bSSH173g4L??96FmT1Ea4@*********************
4h7sM8zSsYnk6BSMmpFNN0393NHfsSLusOH5Whileyouarelisteningyourwillingat
tentionismakingyoumoreandmoreintothepersonyouwanttobecome.
Message no. 9
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 20:18:48 -0500
>A slight I agree, and a slight I disagree here....
>Making them vulnerable to mundane attack is asking for trouble, IMNSHO...
Yes, but making them 'untouchable' int he first place was a little too
powerful, IMNSHO. Becoming intangible is more than a lot of SR spells can
do to an object, spell locks should be an object, like any other focus, not
something that disappears and sits in the astral.


losthalo@********.comGoFa6)7(Im6TJt)Fe(7P!ShMoB4/19.2Bk!cBkc8MBV6sM3ZG
oPuTeiClbMehC6a23=n4bSSH173g4L??96FmT1Ea4@*********************
4h7sM8zSsYnk6BSMmpFNN0393NHfsSLusOH5Whileyouarelisteningyourwillingat
tentionismakingyoumoreandmoreintothepersonyouwanttobecome.
Message no. 10
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 20:28:48 -0500
>> So spell locks would be "turn it off, lose a karma"? "turn it off,
>> lose the spell and recast next time you want to turn it on"?
>
>I think what spell locks should be is a way to cast a spell with a
>free action. You spend the Karma and create the lock. You cast the
>spell into the lock. It is held in the lock until activated (using a
>free action), at which time the spell goes into affect normally. The
>lock is now empty, but still a viable "container". No Karma needs to
>be spent again. Just cast another spell into it. This does two
>things; it allows the mage to cast a spell quickly in an emergency,
>or discretely, and it allows the mage to have an active spell,
>without sustaining it. (Thereby forgoing the penalties).

I think this is an interesting idea for a new type of focues, not a good
replacement for what we now call a spell lock. Very different idea, really.

As for spell locks, I'd like to see them go back to being on all the time,
rather than able to be deactivated and reactivated. I think the casting
mage should be able to remove the locked spell, and use the lock again,
rather than it being "Invisibility with 6 successes" forever, but they pay
karma every time they bond a new spell to it. Though of course, if you
can't deactivate it, you can't easily avoid grounding through it... Anyone
willing to risk physical drain can attack through it. A good reason to pay
attention to the astral, or have someone (ally, elemental, mage buddy)
watching to guard it. :) I still ike the idea of grounding, it was a neat
new thing in 2nd ed, I'd like to see it stay, as one of a mage's liabilities.

losthalo@********.comGoFa6)7(Im6TJt)Fe(7P!ShMoB4/19.2Bk!cBkc8MBV6sM3ZG
oPuTeiClbMehC6a23=n4bSSH173g4L??96FmT1Ea4@*********************
4h7sM8zSsYnk6BSMmpFNN0393NHfsSLusOH5Whileyouarelisteningyourwillingat
tentionismakingyoumoreandmoreintothepersonyouwanttobecome.
Message no. 11
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 22:29:20 -0400
At 04:28 PM 11/5/97 -0500, Steve Kenson wrote:
>

I'll get right to the good stuff :)

>GROUNDING
>
>
>Focus: A focus is magical, a living object in a magical sense. An inactive
>focus has a passive astral form and is the same as a mundane living object
>(above). An active focus has an active astral form and is the same as a dual
>being (above).
>
>
>Mixed Targets: So, what happens if you target an area spell on a spell lock
>worn by someone in the middle of a group? Good question. In the case of area
>spells, determine the caster's magical link to each potential target in the
>area of effect to determine if they are a valid target for the spell. If
>there's no magical link, then that target is not affected.
>
>Example 1: a team of five runners is in a warehouse. Three are mundanes. One
>is a shamanic adept using astral perception. One is a mage wearing an active
>spell lock, with a water elemental in astral form awaiting her commands. An
>astrally projecting security mage ghosts through the wall of the warehouse
>from behind and spots the runners. They don't see him. He decides to target
>the mage's spell lock with a Powerball and lets fly. All of the runners are
>within the radius of the spell.
>
>The spell strikes the focus and easily overcomes it in astral combat. The
>powerball grounds through the spell lock and the gamemaster considers the
>effect of the spell on each valid target in the spell's area:
>
>* The mage wearing the spell lock is not astrally active. Neither are the
>three mundane runners. They are not valid targets. They are not affected. The
>same is true for all of the mundane packing crates and other physical objects
>nearby.

I've always liked the idea that a _physical_ spell can ground through a
link (be it active focus or dual natured creature), and effect _everyone_
in the area of effect. I'd like to see that preserved in SR3 if possible.
If the focus can channel the energy of the spell onto the physical plane,
then I think that would be enough to allow it to effect even purely mundane
targets, as long as they are in LOS of the caster. I like the idea of the
sammies in a group worrying about projecting/preceiving/focus carrying
mages among them. I know in one of my PBEM's recently, the party mage
shifted perception, and I backed off about 7 meters looking very worried,
and I think that is an interesting aspect of magic that should be preserved.

>
>Damaging Manipulations: What about grounding damaging manipulation spells?
>The short answer is: you can't. Unlike combat spells, damaging manipulations
>ground at the CASTER'S location, creating the elemental medium of the spell.
>The caster then directs that matter or energy at the target of the spell. You
>have to be in physical form to cast a damaging manipulation. Otherwise, it
>follows all of the rules above. Since DMs are by definition physical spells,
>they cannot affect purely astral beings. If the sec-mage in the above
>examples tossed Flame Bomb instead of Powerball, he could have done so while
>astrally perceiving or in physical form, but not while astrally projecting.
>The spell would have affected all physical targets in the area of effect
>without the need of a magical link (since the spell creates a real explosion
>of fire, which works just like any mundane explosion), but the purely astral
>water elemental would not have been affected, despite it's Vulnerability to
>fire.

I think I like the fact that physical spells can't effect purely astral
beings, but can effect them if they are manifested spirits, BUT, that might
be really confusing to have as a rule. Something like that, you have to
make sure it is worded really carefully, and with lots of well thought out
examples like this post, or we'll all just end up even more confused.

One finaly point, it seems to me that you are treating anchored objects as
foci when it comes to grounding etc. Is this intentional, because I've
always thought of Quickening and Anchoring as metamagical forms of sorcery
that require the expenditure of karma. Neither actually requires
enchanting, (the preparation of the anchored object does, but no successes
are needed, and if no successes are required in the test, you'll have a
tough time convincing me that the process is true enchanting). The
anchored object acts in some ways like a focus, in that it is a link (for
ritual sorcery) back to its creator, but it also can be "prepared" by
multiple mages, instead of being bound to just one like a focus. So, I've
always seen the two as complex spell forms, and as such, able to be
attacked by astral creatures, but not ground through because they are spell
constructs, and spells don't effect spells.

--DT
Message no. 12
From: lucifer <lucifer@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 22:54:10 -0600
David Thompson wrote:

<snip>

> I've always liked the idea that a _physical_ spell can ground through =
a
> link (be it active focus or dual natured creature), and effect _everyon=
e_
> in the area of effect. I'd like to see that preserved in SR3 if possib=
le.
> If the focus can channel the energy of the spell onto the physical plan=
e,
> then I think that would be enough to allow it to effect even purely mun=
dane
> targets, as long as they are in LOS of the caster. I like the idea of =
the
> sammies in a group worrying about projecting/preceiving/focus carrying
> mages among them.
<snip>

I tend to agree. While I realize Mr. Kenson wrote the book on magic *grin=
*,
as a GM I would tend to have a grounded physical spell effect mundanes =

and objects as well. The way I view it is as if a spell was cast at someo=
ne
in the physical realm. If this happens, you have a spread. Well, if an =
AOE spell
destroys a focus and damages the mage carrying said focus, would not the =

effect spread to others as well? A fireball for instance: If a focus is =
destroyed
by a FB spell, the mage bursts into flames. If you are standing next to =
him,
I tend to believe you yourself might ignite as well.
Of course, I could be wrong............ ;->

Lucifer
Prince of Darkness, Eater of Souls

"One owes respect to the living. To the Dead one owes
only Truth."--Voltaire

"When devils will the blackest sins put on, they
do suggest at first with heavenly shows."--Shakespeare,
from 'Othello'
Message no. 13
From: William Gallas <wgallas@*****.FR>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 10:49:56 +0100
>CONTROLLING ELEMENTALS
>The way I handle it is LOS must be maintained between the elemental and its
>master. If the mage can see the spirit OR the elemental can see the mage, it
>remains under control and continues doing whatever it was last ordered to do.
>Blinking, turning around, having a bag thrown over your head, etc. does not
>affect your control over the spirit, so long as it can still see you.
>Dropping an opaque wall between a mage and an elemental WOULD cut off LOS.
>The elemental vanishes back to the metaplanes on its next action: POOF!

IMO you need LOS to order and control the elemental. But, if your LOS is
cut by something, the elemental uses its own intelligence to interprete
what he has to do. I do NOT mean these are SR rules !

>SPELLS IN ASTRAL SPACE
>This is a complex one. As it says "astral space precludes ranged combat."
>That means there are no astral missile weapons or astral guns. You CAN still
>cast spells astrally at astral things, but basically the spell charges over
>to the target and attacks it in astral (melee) combat. So TECHNICALLY, it's
>not a "ranged attack." Hopefully we can clarify this in SR3 and the Big Book
>o' Magic.

OK

>If a spell wins an astral combat with an astral target, it has its normal
>effect on the target. Physical spells affect the target's physical body
>(wherever it might be). Physical spells simply cannot affect astral entities
>with no physical body (like spirits that are not materialized). Tossing a
>Transform spell (or Invisibility, for that matter) at a spirit is just a
>waste of effort. Even a Mana Invisibility spell won't work on a spirit, since
>the spell is designed to make a PHYSICAL object invisible.

I don't buy it. It just seems silly. If the spell wins the astral combat,
the mage is dead because the spell does physical damage.
The way spells affect their target is some kind of symetry. If you want the
spell to affect a spiritual being in this manner, I think it must use the
aura
of the target to manifest its effects.

>CRITTER POWERS
>Some critter powers work because of the unique astral/physical interaction
>between the critter's astral form and its physical body. Others are purely
>manipulations of astral energy. The physical powers (Flame Projection,
>Engulf, etc.) cannot affect astral beings. The astral powers, like Influence,
>can affect astral targets, IMHO, just like spells, provided the critter can
>assense the target. If you want to fight the power's effects in astral
>combat, treat it like a spell with a Force equal to the critter's Essence.
>See all the stuff about spells below for more.

Draining essence is physical or spiritual ?

>SUSTAINING SPELLS
>I'm not sure SR says one way or another, but LOS is NOT required to sustain a
>spell, only to cast it. Once the spell is up and running, so long as the
>caster concentrates (and takes the +2 TN modifier) the spell keeps going. If
>the caster falls asleep, is knocked out, or dies, the spell ends. The caster
>can also drop the spell at any time. Otherwise, the only theoretical range
>limit on sustaining is that the target of the spell cannot leave the
>atmosphere (which would end the spell). Otherwise, the caster can sustain the
>spell from ANYWHERE. Take ritual sorcery spells as an example. You can use
>ritual sorcery on someone half a world a way. If the spell is successful, you
>can sustain it.

That's what I apply too.

>SPELL LOCKS
>Spell locks are going to get a through once-over in SR3. Mike hates them and
>they're just too damn complex for what they're meant to do. Two things I'd
>like to do are: 1) eliminate the whole "mundanes can't see or interact with
>spell locks" thing because it's caused way too much confusion; 2) make locks
>more like they were in 1st edition SR (expendable) rather than the on/off
>magic items they've become in SR2. I'd like to reserve the on/off option for
>anchorings (which are also going to get reworked some to make them simpler).
>I'd like anchorings to be more like SR2 spell locks are now, with the
>additional option of adding links that turn the spell on or off.

That's what I thought at first but then I used to like the idea of spell
locks being on/off. My players really fear to use their foci or spell locks
because I already used grounding against 'em (as logical consequence of
events, not to give them a lesson). Second, if you make the spell locks not
on/off but apply it to anchorings, you give much more (perhaps too much)
power to anchoring.
I'd like to add that in my game, spell locks are physical objects and so
can be manipulated by mundanes. The reason is I didn't see why it could be
possible to make an object disepear from physical plane. In fact, there
could be some application of this particularity in your game if use this
rule. Take an assault canon and make it a spell lock. When you activate it,
it disepear so you can walk with in an airport without worrying.

>As for masking spell locks, I'd say you have to mask against the lock's
>rating (1) or the spell's Force, whichever is GREATER. So if you have a spell
>of Force 2+ locked, you have to mask the entire Force of the spell to hide
>it.

I use 1 masking point for a spell lock because the PCs do have initiation
ranks ranging from 0 to 4 (perhaps 5 today). They also have to mask their
foci.

>SPELL VS. SPELL
>With a spell like Barrier or Mana Barrier, you have to make a distinction
>between the SPELL and its EFFECT. For Barrier, the spell creates a magical
>construct of energy (the barrier). Mana Barrier creates an energy field keyed
>to astral forms, making the barrier solid against all living and magical
>things. Physical Barrier creates a magical "force field" that stops all
>physical things. The actual barrier is separate from the spell that creates
>it, just like the actual fire created by a manipulation spell is separate
>from the spell itself. The BARRIER can be targeted by other spells, such as
>Shattershield, but the actual Barrier spell remains in astral space the whole
>time and can't be hit with spells (spells don't affect other spells).

So you could have a dispel magic spell which attacks the effects :)
Otherwise, I totally agree.

>The spell vs. spell thing leads into...
>
>GROUNDING

Arrrgh !

>Astral Construct: Purely astral constructs like wards or other astral
>barriers exist only in astral space, so they can only be targeted by mana
>spells, and only by sorcerers using astral perception or projection.

IMO you do not need mana spells. If you think that, in astral, the spell
you launch is charging and enters in an astral combat, you only need this
fact to destroy the barrier (or try to destroy it).

>Spirit: Spirits in astral form are the same as other astral beings and
>constructs (above): they can only be targeted by Mana spells and only by
>sorcerers who are astrally active and able to assense the spirit. Spirits in
>material form are dual beings (above).

Same as above.

>Mixed Targets: So, what happens if you target an area spell on a spell lock
>worn by someone in the middle of a group? Good question. In the case of area
>spells, determine the caster's magical link to each potential target in the
>area of effect to determine if they are a valid target for the spell. If
>there's no magical link, then that target is not affected.

Quite logical with your hypothesis ...

>Steve K.

Cobra.

E-mail adress : wgallas@*****.fr
Quote : "You are who you know"
Message no. 14
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:58:27 GMT
Drekhead writes
> > your high-drain increase reflexes spell into it again), Quickenings
> > couldn't be turned on and off, and it's hard to get a lot of time on
> > your increase reflexes spell into an Anchoring, that will seriously
> > slow down mages. (It seems that most magicians I've seen use a
> > spell locked Increase Reflexes as a substitute for wired reflexes
> > with a reflex trigger.)
>
> Yes they do, and I don't like it. The very idea of a speed mage is
> ludicrous; which is why in my game initiative boost spells do not
> exist. Speed is for the sammies, and the physad.
>
Ok i see you like this from a 'vision' rather than game balance point
of view. If you as a GM run your game with this in mind and are fair
to the poor mages who will only get vary rare actions i can see it
working but in general it poses a big problem for the player of a
magician if they have a maximum average initiative of about 7 and the
sammie always goes in over 20. If nothing else the poor player is
going to get very bored with long combats in which they do little
(because their action ratio is far below eveyone elses) or combats
that are always over before they act (because it was a chance meet at
point blank and the sammie shot everyone).
And heaven forbid the party gets ambushed, oh 'because you want to
play your magcian pure you MUST stand there and get shot multiple
times NO SOLUTION' i don't agree, i like to be able to roleplay
(refuse to cyber up by magician characters) yet have a reasonable
chance of at least eating dirt/cover before the sammies second
action. Suprise happens, and even with the rules by the book
cyberware typically gives better speed boosts than pure magic so it
already stands that if you want your mage to go as fast as the
sammies then cybering up is the best solution.

Mark
Message no. 15
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 11:04:59 GMT
Steve Kenson writes

> First off, I wouldn't touch the "FASAMike vs. Steve Kenson" subject line
with
> a ten-foot pole... <grin>
>
Don't blame you :) i thought it was 'brave' considering you would see
it, the game police are out there :)

> Secondly, everything presented here is entirely My Humble Opinion and does
> not reflect on the opinions of FASA Corporation, blah, blah, blah. This IS
> how I would like to see these things go in SR3, but that doesn't necessarily
> make it so. Mike Mulvihill is the developer, his word goes.
>
ok. Note to everyone, this is going to get VERY long.
random trimming on.

> CONTROLLING ELEMENTALS
>
> If the mage can see the spirit OR the elemental can see the mage, it
> remains under control and continues doing whatever it was last ordered to do.
This seems the best method, and is how i interpret the present rules.

> SPELLS IN ASTRAL SPACE
>
> This is a complex one. As it says "astral space precludes ranged combat."
> That means there are no astral missile weapons or astral guns. You CAN still
> cast spells astrally at astral things, but basically the spell charges over
> to the target and attacks it in astral (melee) combat. So TECHNICALLY, it's
> not a "ranged attack." Hopefully we can clarify this in SR3 and the Big
Book
> o' Magic.
only one query, you mention melee here, i assume that unless the
target has a held action the spell attacks against no resistance,
(although defending in normal melee is not an action) or else hurting
initiated magcians in the astral with spells is impossible (or
effectively so given only spells that they may shield against can be
cast at them anyway)

> If a spell wins an astral combat with an astral target, it has its normal
> effect on the target. Physical spells affect the target's physical body
> (wherever it might be).
fine.

> Physical spells simply cannot affect astral entities
> with no physical body (like spirits that are not materialized).
oh. Ok i can see this being reasonable but new.

> Tossing a
> Transform spell (or Invisibility, for that matter) at a spirit is just a
> waste of effort. Even a Mana Invisibility spell won't work on a spirit, since
> the spell is designed to make a PHYSICAL object invisible.
>
ok.

> CRITTER POWERS
>
> Some critter powers work because of the unique astral/physical interaction
> between the critter's astral form and its physical body. Others are purely
> manipulations of astral energy. The physical powers (Flame Projection,
> Engulf, etc.) cannot affect astral beings.
as GR2, fine.

> The astral powers, like Influence,
> can affect astral targets, IMHO, just like spells,
Agreed.

> provided the critter can
> assense the target.
don't you mean 'see the target' i don't see why the critter should
have to be able to assence the target if both are physical, ok given
most critters are dual almost a mute point but.

> If you want to fight the power's effects in astral
> combat, treat it like a spell with a Force equal to the critter's Essence.
> See all the stuff about spells below for more.
>
again reasonable. I assume also true against 'dispelling' for which a
way to work out the 'effective' drain code would alos be useful.

> SPELL TARGETING
>
> In the first case, the sorcerer must be able to see, touch or assense the
> target.
So you agree that you can powerbolt the magemask thats touching your
face even though you cannot see it because no light is getting in?

> Forget all of that stuff about "subliminal astral perception" and similar
> drek. As far as I'm concerned it needlessly complicates matters.
agreed it may be good 'workings of magic' but i confuses the game
rules

> A physical
> sorcerer using normal vision to target a spell is NOT astrally active in any
> way. The visual image of the target alone provides the magical link. Sorcery
> adepts do not have astral perception, nor do they need it to cast or target
> spells.
>
ok, again the limited astral as described SR2, GR2 makes rollplaying
sense but confuses the game rules too much.

> SUSTAINING SPELLS
>
> I'm not sure SR says one way or another,
it doesn't AFAIK. [certain modules have examples proving this but]

> but LOS is NOT required to sustain a
> spell, only to cast it. Once the spell is up and running, so long as the
> caster concentrates (and takes the +2 TN modifier) the spell keeps going. If
> the caster falls asleep, is knocked out, or dies, the spell ends. The caster
> can also drop the spell at any time. Otherwise, the only theoretical range
> limit on sustaining is that the target of the spell cannot leave the
> atmosphere (which would end the spell). Otherwise, the caster can sustain the
> spell from ANYWHERE. Take ritual sorcery spells as an example. You can use
> ritual sorcery on someone half a world a way. If the spell is successful, you
> can sustain it.
>
agreed, good roleplaying of concentration limits should keep things
in check.

> SPELL LOCKS
>
> Spell locks are going to get a through once-over in SR3. Mike hates them and
> they're just too damn complex for what they're meant to do.
fine

> Two things I'd
> like to do are: 1) eliminate the whole "mundanes can't see or interact with
> spell locks" thing because it's caused way too much confusion;
it also just doesn't make sense, agreed.

> 2) make locks
> more like they were in 1st edition SR (expendable) rather than the on/off
> magic items they've become in SR2.
agreed. i have long banned this as far too powerful.

> I'd like to reserve the on/off option for
> anchorings (which are also going to get reworked some to make them simpler).
> I'd like anchorings to be more like SR2 spell locks are now, with the
> additional option of adding links that turn the spell on or off.
>
i find anchoring fine as is but i agree it is too complex for many
folks to understand. I would prefer it left alone as i like it but.

> As for masking spell locks, I'd say you have to mask against the lock's
> rating (1) or the spell's Force, whichever is GREATER. So if you have a spell
> of Force 2+ locked, you have to mask the entire Force of the spell to hide
> it.
>
ok i'll happily go along with that. Could you sort out masking
quickenings while about it? or get Mike to.

> SPELL VS. SPELL
>
all looked fine.

> The spell vs. spell thing leads into...
>
> GROUNDING
>
all looks fine, trim trim.

> Spell: Spells cannot be targeted by other spells. Period. Objects and
> materials created by spells may be targeted by other spells normally. This
> means (IMHO) you CANNOT ground through sustained or quickened spells in any
> way, nor can you ground through a character casting a spell, unless he
> happens to be using astral perception at the time. You can ground through a
> spell lock
fine.

> or a spell anchor because those are foci (see above).
ah you are wanting those classifed as foci becasue of the enchanting.
i consider that a change, one SR3 could back happily but a change,
though a reasonable one that would clear things up.

>
> Astral Construct: Purely astral constructs like wards or other astral
> barriers exist only in astral space, so they can only be targeted by mana
> spells, and only by sorcerers using astral perception or projection.
>
but what happens! The present rules for fighting wards suck, to make
this easy and sort out ward combat could wards acquire damage tracks
and fight in standard combat (TN4 skill = rating) the same as
everything else, would make life so much easier.

> Mixed Targets: So, what happens if you target an area spell on a spell lock
> worn by someone in the middle of a group? Good question. In the case of area
> spells, determine the caster's magical link to each potential target in the
> area of effect to determine if they are a valid target for the spell. If
> there's no magical link, then that target is not affected.
>
this is where the problems start.

> Example 1: a team of five runners is in a warehouse. Three are mundanes. One
> is a shamanic adept using astral perception. One is a mage wearing an active
> spell lock, with a water elemental in astral form awaiting her commands. An
> astrally projecting security mage ghosts through the wall of the warehouse
> from behind and spots the runners. They don't see him. He decides to target
> the mage's spell lock with a Powerball and lets fly. All of the runners are
> within the radius of the spell.
>
> The spell strikes the focus and easily overcomes it in astral combat. The
> powerball grounds through the spell lock and the gamemaster considers the
> effect of the spell on each valid target in the spell's area:
>
all ok so far.

> * The spell lock's physical form (a gold ring) is instantly destroyed, it
> turns to dust with a faint "POP!"
fine, SR2.

> * The mage wearing the spell lock is not astrally active. Neither are the
> three mundane runners. They are not valid targets. They are not affected. The
> same is true for all of the mundane packing crates and other physical objects
> nearby.
i would agree if the spell were a manaball. but by SR2 this is a
power spell which has grounded through the lock which bridges it to
the physical plane, so they all get hit as if the caster were on the
physical plane. (as i read SR2 a manaball would hurt the guy with the
lock but no one else (due to grounding at least) )

> * The shamanic adept using astral perception IS astrally active. The spell
> affects him normally, and the gamemaster calls for a Spell Resistance Test.
> If the shaman had ducked behind a crate just as the security mage entered,
> completely hiding him from sight, he would have been an invalid target and
> would not have been affected by the spell, even if he was still within its
> radius.
fine.

> * The water elemental is astrally active, making it a valid target,
fine.

> but the
> spirit has no physical form. Powerball is a Physical spell, so it cannot
> affect the spirit. A tactically poor choice on the part of the security mage,
> if he had cast Manaball, the spirit would have been affected as well.
>
ok by what you said above.

but say it had been a manaball, it gounds through the lock, does it
then hurt the mage with the lock and still spread on the atsra to the
elemental and shaman? i assume it does. And if the powerball spreads
on the physical (as SR2) can it hurt the sammies and say a projecting
magician (who has a body and so can be hurt by it unlike the spirit
which you rule immune to the power spell)

> Example 2: Same situation as Example 1, only this time the security mage is
> using astral perception and is lying in wait behind a packing crate. He
> springs up behind the runners and throws a powerball, centering it on the
> spell lock:
>
> * Everything the sec-mage can assense (physical and astral) within the radius
> of the spell is a valid target. The water elemental has no physical form, so
> it is not affected.
>
ah ok. Half answers above. spells aan spread on the physical and
astral together as i thought.

> Example 3:
fine

DM's agreed.

> I hope this helps clarify some things, including my plans for SR3. Your
> feedback is, of course, welcome.
>
Yes, some queiries, in know Mike makes the final descisions but i
answered what i would like to see in SR3 anyway.

Mark
Message no. 16
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:11:32 GMT
Max Rible writes

> >The way all spells and other sorcery effects are targeted is through what I
> >call a "magical link." This can take two forms: being able to sense the
> >target with a primary sense,
> >In the first case, the sorcerer must be able to see, touch or assense the
> >target.
>
> Would this work for
> (a) someone who has cyberware installed to let them sense objects with
> ultrasound?
no because ultrasound is a technological detection metihod, same rule
as to why cameras fail.

> (b) someone who has had a cyberware radar system installed (probably at ruinous
> Essence cost)?
similarly its tech, NO.

> (c) someone under a Hypersenses spell to give them bat-like sonar?
>
nope, same problems as with clairvoyance, not natural [this is ED
level magic and something i don't want to see in SR as coupled with
SR magic it is far too powerful, ED being so limited by the effects
of the horrors)

> So spell locks would be "turn it off, lose a karma"? "turn it off,
lose the
> spell and recast next time you want to turn it on"?
i assume thats it, which is what i have been playing, basically its
simpler and avoids abusive locking of things like invis and barrier
spells which becomes very powerful.

> more details about the Anchoring. (I can't recall how practical it is
> to use an Anchoring focus to hold your increase-reflexes spell like you
> would a spell lock.)
reasonably, appart from the fact that long duration temporal links
are drain heavy.

> and it's hard to get a
> lot of time on your increase reflexes spell into an Anchoring, that will
> seriously slow down mages. (It seems that most magicians I've seen use
> a spell locked Increase Reflexes as a substitute for wired reflexes with
> a reflex trigger.)
>
Anchoring will nicely replace a reflex triggered wired (because total
time activated is quite low) while a masked spell lock is the
equivalent of wired without the trigger, on all the time but no
duration problems.

Mark
Message no. 17
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:22:18 GMT
Matthew Johnson writes

> This helped to answer some questions, but brought up a few:
>
> I always thought if an area-effect mana spell (e.g., Manaball) was cast
> astrally, it would not affect Astral Space as an area-effect spell. It
> would only attack one target. Steve Kenson said in his examples on
> grounding that the Elemental in that example would be a viable target had
> the spell been a mana spell, not Powerball (in that example, a spell lock
> was targeted, with an elemental within the area-effect of the spell that
> was cast against the spell lock).
The 'mana spells not spreading' was only ever 'on the physical if
grounded from the astral' so yes an area effect spell could IMHO hit
multiple astral targets if cast on the astral. the exact case you note
of Steve's however was a grey area.

Mark
Message no. 18
From: HAUPT ULRICH FB08 <sandman@****.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 15:24:21 MEZ-1MESZ
On Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:28:16 -0500 Steve Kenson said:

<snip magic thoughts>


> SUSTAINING SPELLS
>
> I'm not sure SR says one way or another, but LOS is NOT required to sustain a
> spell, only to cast it. Once the spell is up and running, so long as the
> caster concentrates (and takes the +2 TN modifier) the spell keeps going. If
> the caster falls asleep, is knocked out, or dies, the spell ends. The caster
> can also drop the spell at any time. Otherwise, the only theoretical range
> limit on sustaining is that the target of the spell cannot leave the
> atmosphere (which would end the spell). Otherwise, the caster can sustain the
> spell from ANYWHERE. Take ritual sorcery spells as an example. You can use
> ritual sorcery on someone half a world a way. If the spell is successful, you
> can sustain it.

<snip more magic>

I think that it is technically impossible to rule that the spell
target must be in LINE OF SIGHT to keep the spell on. What would
happen if a tree gets between the sorcerer and the target ?
Sure, you can say that the spell is broken the moment the sorcerer
doesn't see the target. But does this one count for all such events ?
An averge human twinkles about 30 times a minute or every two
seconds! That would break the spell if taking the rules by its words
(I know: very german English). If you say the spell is not broken by
twinkeling it is an interpretation and from that point on it is not
the rule anymore which is in the books!

Any comments ???

Sandman
Message no. 19
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:45:08 +0000
> An averge human twinkles about 30 times a minute or every two
> seconds! That would break the spell if taking the rules by its words
> (I know: very german English). If you say the spell is not broken by


Normally I accept poor english without question....after all, most
of you for whom English is a second language speak better english
that most of my american friends (or me!), and you certainly speak
YOUR second languages better than I do mine, but this was just too
funny to ignore.

I'm pretty sure you meant "blinks" instead of "Twinkles". "to
Blink"
is to close both of your eyes quickly and briefly without thought.
"to twinkle" is to have light reflect and sparkle off of you.
Diamonds twinkle...most cut gems twinkle. People usually don't. :)

Thanks though, it was a great image.

Oh, BTW, since I'm pointing out english tips, your use of "taking the
rules by its words" is perfectly understandable. The traditional way
of saying it would be "that would break the spell if going by the
letter of the rules". We refer to the "letter" of the law or rule or
contract or whatever to mean taking it exactly as the words say. the
"spirit" of the law or whatever refers to what the author MEANT when
she/he wrote/said it.

To try and keep this on-topic, almost all of use agree with you that
there must be more than simply not seeing the target for moment for
it to fail. we have a few stances on this:

1) MC23--The caster must be able to "detect" the astral image in a
subliminal fashion. A good check for this is within speaking range.

2) FASAMike -- The caster must be close enough and without
intervening terrain to see target without more motion required than
turning around and/or opening eyes.

3) A decent portion of the shadowrun players population -- the spell
can be sustained anywhere, as long as the Magician can sustain it.

-=SwiftOne=-
Brett Borger
SwiftOne@***.edu
AAP Techie
Message no. 20
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:48:29 +0500
On 6 Nov 97 at 9:58, Mark Steedman wrote:

> Ok i see you like this from a 'vision' rather than game balance
> point of view. If you as a GM run your game with this in mind and
> are fair to the poor mages who will only get vary rare actions
<snipped, point taken>

Never heard a complaint. But I'm starting to think, does every other
game in the world have mages casting/locking increase reflex spells
on themselves? I find this real hard to believe. But from the
responses I've gotten, everyone seems to think I am "cheating" my
players. They know the rules going in, and play mages anyway. I
myself have played a shaman and a sorcerer adept in two games, and
neither one of them learned Increase Reflexes spell, and I didn't
find myself at a disadvantage.

> And heaven
> forbid the party gets ambushed, oh 'because you want to play your
> magcian pure you MUST stand there and get shot multiple times NO
> SOLUTION' i don't agree,

If the party is ambushed, everyone can be shot at if they are
surprised. Speed won't make a difference. If the mage is "on duty"
and doesn't have mask, invisibility, or a barrier up, or a spirit or
elemental protection, he deserves whatever he gets.

> i like to be able to roleplay (refuse to
> cyber up by magician characters) yet have a reasonable chance of at
> least eating dirt/cover before the sammies second action.

You don't have to wait for your action to move. Also, dropping prone
is a free action. Activating a lock is a free action.

> Suprise
> happens, and even with the rules by the book cyberware typically
> gives better speed boosts than pure magic so it already stands that
> if you want your mage to go as fast as the sammies then cybering up
> is the best solution.

Exactly.

--
===DREKHEAD==================================drekhead@***.net====
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Alley/6990/index.html
=================================================================
If I want your opinion, I'll ask you to fill out the necessary forms.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 21
From: William Gallas <wgallas@*****.FR>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 16:30:30 +0100
>Never heard a complaint. But I'm starting to think, does every other
>game in the world have mages casting/locking increase reflex spells
>on themselves? I find this real hard to believe. But from the
>responses I've gotten, everyone seems to think I am "cheating" my
>players. They know the rules going in, and play mages anyway. I
>myself have played a shaman and a sorcerer adept in two games, and
>neither one of them learned Increase Reflexes spell, and I didn't
>find myself at a disadvantage.

I've players whose characters don't have magic nor cyberware. Needless to
say, they've got a normal initiatives. Some of the magicians do not have
increase reflexes and the other ones usually fear to use it (because of
spirits and mages in astral). One of the street sams doesn't have wired
reflexes !
The first reason is that the NPCs are not dumb. If a mage wants to fight
other mages, he first go in astral to ground as much as possible spells
while some troopers fire at the poor mage. The second is that most people
they fight with do not have monstrous initiatives. If you are faster than
most people, you don't have to become even faster.
In the first SR campaign I GMed (a long time ago ...), I created NPCs
always more powerful to match the players. With time, game became an
escalation of power and tricks. This can be interesting but not necessary.

>> And heaven
>> forbid the party gets ambushed, oh 'because you want to play your
>> magcian pure you MUST stand there and get shot multiple times NO
>> SOLUTION' i don't agree,
>If the party is ambushed, everyone can be shot at if they are
>surprised. Speed won't make a difference. If the mage is "on duty"
>and doesn't have mask, invisibility, or a barrier up, or a spirit or
>elemental protection, he deserves whatever he gets.

I agree. And if most of the mages are slow (all in your case), the
ambushers will prefer to shoot at the sammies than at the mages because
these ones would be able to react faster and will become dangerous sooner
than mages. Firing at the mages is a classical way for GMs to concentrate
fire on the munchkins because insteed of what most of you are saying most
munchkins are mages.

>> i like to be able to roleplay (refuse to
>> cyber up by magician characters) yet have a reasonable chance of at
>> least eating dirt/cover before the sammies second action.
>
>You don't have to wait for your action to move. Also, dropping prone
>is a free action. Activating a lock is a free action.

In my game, it's a simple action.

>> Suprise
>> happens, and even with the rules by the book cyberware typically
>> gives better speed boosts than pure magic so it already stands that
>> if you want your mage to go as fast as the sammies then cybering up
>> is the best solution.
>Exactly.
Exactly.

Cobra.

E-mail adress : wgallas@*****.fr
Quote : "You are who you know"
Message no. 22
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 17:27:48 -0500
At 05-Nov-97 wrote Drekhead:


>You don't have to wait for your action to move. Also, dropping prone
>is a free action. Activating a lock is a free action.

Sorry, by the book you must wait. A free action can only be made after
the first simple/complex action has taken place by a character.
And IIRC activating a look is a simple action.

--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evil Overlord advice #50:

My main computers will have their own special operating system
that will be completely incompatible with standard IBM and
Macintosh powerbooks.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 23
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 11:39:51 +0500
On 6 Nov 97 at 17:27, Barbie wrote:

> At 05-Nov-97 wrote Drekhead:
>
> >You don't have to wait for your action to move. Also, dropping prone
> >is a free action. Activating a lock is a free action.
>
> Sorry, by the book you must wait. A free action can only be made
> after the first simple/complex action has taken place by a
> character. And IIRC activating a look is a simple action.

Is it? Damn I wish I had my books with me. If it does take a simple,
I don't know why, unless you have to retrieve from a pack or pocket.
And if you are right about the free action, I had forgotten. We have
always played with a rule that allows everyone one free action
at the top of a round, but I admit, it may be a house rule.

--

===DREKHEAD==================================drekhead@***.net====
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Alley/6990/index.html
=================================================================
It's time's like this I wish I were a psycopath.
-Dilbert

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 24
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:42:29 -0700
Barbie wrote:
/
/ At 05-Nov-97 wrote Drekhead:
/
/ >You don't have to wait for your action to move. Also, dropping prone
/ >is a free action. Activating a lock is a free action.
/
/ Sorry, by the book you must wait. A free action can only be made after
/ the first simple/complex action has taken place by a character.

Could you do me a favor and tell me where that rule is and quote it?
I can't remember ever having read it.

Thanks,
-David
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
--
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 25
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:02:03 +0500
On 6 Nov 97 at 9:42, David Buehrer wrote:

Barbie wrote:
>> Sorry, by the book you must wait. A free action can only be made
>> after / the first simple/complex action has taken place by a
>> character.
>
> Could you do me a favor and tell me where that rule is and quote it?
> I can't remember ever having read it.

I thought it sounded funny, but couldn't confirm it, so I just
accepted that what we did was a house rule. I would be curious to
see the actual quote as well.

--

===DREKHEAD==================================drekhead@***.net====
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Alley/6990/index.html
=================================================================
Too much e-mail causes Dain bramage.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 26
From: Les Ward <lward@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:14:36 -0500
>From: Steve Kenson <TalonMail@***.COM>

>SPELLS IN ASTRAL SPACE

Bravo.

>CRITTER POWERS

Bravo again. In SR3, please for the love of God clear up the nature spirit
manifestation thing. Check out the ShadowFAQ, if you don't know what I mean.
In fact, I would very much like to see the majority of the questions in the
FAQ officially answered in SR3. The FAQ can be found at:

http://pobox.com/~wordman/ShadowFAQ.html

>SPELL TARGETING

>Forget all of that stuff about "subliminal astral perception" and similar
>drek. As far as I'm concerned it needlessly complicates matters.

Alleluia.

>SUSTAINING SPELLS
>
>I'm not sure SR says one way or another, but LOS is NOT required to sustain a
>spell, only to cast it.

Sensible. One thing that always bothered me about sustained spell, though,
is that drain is only resisted once. That's a bit like saying once you lift
a heavy object over your head, you can carry it around all day and never
get tired. This may be more in the realm of house rules, but it'd be cool
if SR3 made you resist drain once an hour or something, maybe at a reduced
target number (easier to keep going than build from scratch).

>SPELL LOCKS
>
>1) eliminate the whole "mundanes can't see or interact with
>spell locks" thing because it's caused way too much confusion;

>2) make locks
>more like they were in 1st edition SR (expendable) rather than the on/off
>magic items they've become in SR2.

I love these two ideas because they make spell locks almost entirely
useless. The first one makes them vulnerable to destruction by theives. The
second means that if you ever use a ward or other astral barrier, you can't
pass it without destroying your lock. If I remember correctly, Medicine
Lodges act as astral barriers (at least they did in SR1), so shaman are
particularly hosed. This is good, because _real_ magicians don't use toys.
It also slots off powergamers, who seem absurdly fond of spell locks.

If these changes make SR3, I'd suggest reducing the nuyen cost of the spell
lock to reflect their reduced ability.

>SPELL VS. SPELL

One thing that would help in this area is an example or two of what a spell
"looks like" in astral space. I've always played them as animal-like.
Sustained spells appear in some form commesurate with their effect. For
barriers, the barrier itself is a grey, opaque sphere, and the animal sits
inside. This leads to an interesting question: where is the astral form of
the spell, inside or outside the barrier? Can the spell itself be attacked
without penetrating the barrier? From either side?

>GROUNDING

A couple of people mentioned that they like the idea of a _projecting_
being able to hit mundane targets through a focus. I can see their point,
but I like Steve's way better. This is because, even using Steve's idea,
magicians can still hit mundane targets through a focus, as long as they
use combat spells with elemental effects. Sure the targets will get hit
only by the elemental effect, and get armor protection, but it would still
work.

Secondly, Steve's idea is just much more internally consistant with the
rest of the magic system.

>Spell: Spells cannot be targeted by other spells. Period.

Yes! Sing it, brother Steve!

>Mixed Targets: So, what happens if you target an area spell on a spell lock
>worn by someone in the middle of a group?

One thing Steve didn't make clear was the difference between using mana and
physical magic. He touched on it a bit, but some other stuff wasn't
mentioned. It seems to me that Steve's Example 1 would change in the
following way with a manaball:

* The spell lock's physical form (a gold ring) is unaffected, but the spell
it was locking is destroed.

* The water elemental is astrally active, and so gets hit by the manaball,
as Steve mentioned.

Basically, Steve's examples are not currently the way SR2 works, but I
agree totally that this should be the way it works in SR3. The previous SR
magic system seems to have laid out good initial principles, then fell
victim to the "this would be cool" syndrome. A sensical framework was laid
out, then feature that "would be cool" were added, but didn't really fit
into the framework. Rules were added to justify the cool stuff that totally
confused everything.

>Damaging Manipulations: What about grounding damaging manipulation spells?
>The short answer is: you can't. Unlike combat spells, damaging manipulations
>ground at the CASTER'S location, creating the elemental medium of the spell.

I've been using a house rule that goes one step further, and clears up the
hideous "special case" rules for damaging manipulations. My rule is that DM
spells target the _caster_. The effect of the DM is not to generate an
elemental effect. Instead, it "energizes" the caster, enabling her to emit
an elemental effect. In this way grounding DM spells work the same way all
spells with a range of "touch" or "self" work. That is, you can't
ground
them.

Wordman
Message no. 27
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 18:37:21 -0500
At 06-Nov-97 wrote Drekhead:


>> Could you do me a favor and tell me where that rule is and quote it?
>> I can't remember ever having read it.

>I thought it sounded funny, but couldn't confirm it, so I just
>accepted that what we did was a house rule. I would be curious to
>see the actual quote as well.

Sorry, no quote. I have only the german BBB, but look under
combat/actions/free actions.
Should be around page 80.

--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evil Overlord advice #50:

My main computers will have their own special operating system
that will be completely incompatible with standard IBM and
Macintosh powerbooks.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 28
From: "Steven A. Tinner" <bluewizard@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 14:12:10 -0500
>SPELL LOCKS
>
>Spell locks are going to get a through once-over in SR3. Mike hates them
and
>they're just too damn complex for what they're meant to do. Two things I'd
>like to do are: 1) eliminate the whole "mundanes can't see or interact with
>spell locks" thing because it's caused way too much confusion; 2) make
locks
>more like they were in 1st edition SR (expendable) rather than the on/off
>magic items they've become in SR2. I'd like to reserve the on/off option
for
>anchorings (which are also going to get reworked some to make them
simpler).
>I'd like anchorings to be more like SR2 spell locks are now, with the
>additional option of adding links that turn the spell on or off.
>
>As for masking spell locks, I'd say you have to mask against the lock's
>rating (1) or the spell's Force, whichever is GREATER. So if you have a
spell
>of Force 2+ locked, you have to mask the entire Force of the spell to hide
>it.

These rules make a lot of sense to me Steve.
I just realized that I had been playing SR2 Spell Locks as SR1!
I'm all in favor of making this official for SR3.

Steven A. Tinner
bluewizard@*****.com
http://www.ncweb.com/users/bluewizard
"Can you summon wizards, demon?"
Message no. 29
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 13:49:31 -0500
On Wednesday, November 05, 1997 16:28, Steve Kenson[SMTP:TalonMail@***.COM]
wrote:
> First off, I wouldn't touch the "FASAMike vs. Steve Kenson" subject line
with
> a ten-foot pole... <grin>

Don't blame you...
[snip]

> CONTROLLING ELEMENTALS
>
> The way I handle it is LOS must be maintained between the elemental and
its
> master. If the mage can see the spirit OR the elemental can see the mage,
it
> remains under control and continues doing whatever it was last ordered to
do.
> Blinking, turning around, having a bag thrown over your head, etc. does
not
> affect your control over the spirit, so long as it can still see you.
> Dropping an opaque wall between a mage and an elemental WOULD cut off
LOS.
> The elemental vanishes back to the metaplanes on its next action: POOF!

And since the elemental is not limited to a certain direction in its sight
(IMHO, since it doesn't really "see", it perceives...) it can always
maintain LOS, unless a physical object intervenes.

> SPELLS IN ASTRAL SPACE
>
> This is a complex one. As it says "astral space precludes ranged combat."
> That means there are no astral missile weapons or astral guns. You CAN
still
> cast spells astrally at astral things, but basically the spell charges
over
> to the target and attacks it in astral (melee) combat. So TECHNICALLY,
it's
> not a "ranged attack." Hopefully we can clarify this in SR3 and the Big
Book
> o' Magic.

I like this option. With this option, I would treat the force of the spell
as its base rating for combat skills and such, and allocated magic pool as
threat/combat pool (and not allow those dice to refresh in the caster's
pool until the spell is gone/has had its effect). IF you don't mind
bookkeeping, give the spell a damage track. (if it succeeds despite damage,
increase the target numbers for the spell to have an effect).

I know this makes spells cast at astral targets have an entirely different
mechanism than spell cast at physical targets, but they appear to have
different means of resolving.

[snip]

> CRITTER POWERS
>
> Some critter powers work because of the unique astral/physical
interaction
> between the critter's astral form and its physical body. Others are
purely
> manipulations of astral energy. The physical powers (Flame Projection,
> Engulf, etc.) cannot affect astral beings. The astral powers, like
Influence,
> can affect astral targets, IMHO, just like spells, provided the critter
can
> assense the target. If you want to fight the power's effects in astral
> combat, treat it like a spell with a Force equal to the critter's
Essence.
> See all the stuff about spells below for more.

Consistent with spells, but it makes a hellhound (or any other dual-natured
critter) a lot less dangerous astrally.

> SPELL TARGETING
[snip]
>
> SUSTAINING SPELLS
>
> I'm not sure SR says one way or another, but LOS is NOT required to
sustain a
> spell, only to cast it. Once the spell is up and running, so long as the
> caster concentrates (and takes the +2 TN modifier) the spell keeps going.
If
> the caster falls asleep, is knocked out, or dies, the spell ends. The
caster
> can also drop the spell at any time. Otherwise, the only theoretical
range
> limit on sustaining is that the target of the spell cannot leave the
> atmosphere (which would end the spell). Otherwise, the caster can sustain
the
> spell from ANYWHERE. Take ritual sorcery spells as an example. You can
use
> ritual sorcery on someone half a world a way. If the spell is successful,
you
> can sustain it.

OK. I see. Once the spell happens, the spell itself forms a link to the
caster, allowing him/her to sustain the spell despite it being out of LOS.
This also means that an astrally active mage who spots the sustained spell
can trace the link back to the caster. (The trace works both ways, see
ritual sorcery).

> SPELL LOCKS
>
> Spell locks are going to get a through once-over in SR3. Mike hates them
and
> they're just too damn complex for what they're meant to do. Two things
I'd
> like to do are: 1) eliminate the whole "mundanes can't see or interact
with
> spell locks" thing because it's caused way too much confusion; 2) make
locks
> more like they were in 1st edition SR (expendable) rather than the on/off
> magic items they've become in SR2. I'd like to reserve the on/off option
for
> anchorings (which are also going to get reworked some to make them
simpler).
> I'd like anchorings to be more like SR2 spell locks are now, with the
> additional option of adding links that turn the spell on or off.

Make them cheaper, then. They are quite expensive now even for what you
get.

[snip]

> GROUNDING
>
> OK, I said it, I'll tell you what I think about it, and may the gods keep
any
> flame-wars to a minimum...
>
[snip]
> Mixed Targets: So, what happens if you target an area spell on a spell
lock
> worn by someone in the middle of a group? Good question. In the case of
area
> spells, determine the caster's magical link to each potential target in
the
> area of effect to determine if they are a valid target for the spell. If
> there's no magical link, then that target is not affected.
>
> Example 1: a team of five runners is in a warehouse. Three are mundanes.
One
> is a shamanic adept using astral perception. One is a mage wearing an
active
> spell lock, with a water elemental in astral form awaiting her commands.
An
> astrally projecting security mage ghosts through the wall of the
warehouse
> from behind and spots the runners. They don't see him. He decides to
target
> the mage's spell lock with a Powerball and lets fly. All of the runners
are
> within the radius of the spell.
>
> The spell strikes the focus and easily overcomes it in astral combat. The
> powerball grounds through the spell lock and the gamemaster considers the
> effect of the spell on each valid target in the spell's area:
>
> * The spell lock's physical form (a gold ring) is instantly destroyed, it
> turns to dust with a faint "POP!"
> * The mage wearing the spell lock is not astrally active. Neither are the
> three mundane runners. They are not valid targets. They are not affected.
The
> same is true for all of the mundane packing crates and other physical
objects
> nearby.
> * The shamanic adept using astral perception IS astrally active. The
spell
> affects him normally, and the gamemaster calls for a Spell Resistance
Test.
> If the shaman had ducked behind a crate just as the security mage
entered,
> completely hiding him from sight, he would have been an invalid target
and
> would not have been affected by the spell, even if he was still within
its
> radius.
> * The water elemental is astrally active, making it a valid target, but
the
> spirit has no physical form. Powerball is a Physical spell, so it cannot
> affect the spirit. A tactically poor choice on the part of the security
mage,
> if he had cast Manaball, the spirit would have been affected as well.

I don't like this, because it makes wearing an active focus a lot less
dangerous to the mage and his nearby companions. (incidentally,
contradicting a fair amount of the universe's fiction, as well). OTOH, it
is more in line with the above [snipped] discussion on spell targets. Oh
well.

--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)
Message no. 30
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 14:04:14 -0500
On Thursday, November 06, 1997 07:11, Mark
Steedman[SMTP:M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK] wrote:
> Max Rible writes
>
> > >The way all spells and other sorcery effects are targeted is through
what I
> > >call a "magical link." This can take two forms: being able to
sense
the
> > >target with a primary sense,
> > >In the first case, the sorcerer must be able to see, touch or assense
the
> > >target.
> >
> > Would this work for
> > (a) someone who has cyberware installed to let them sense objects with
> > ultrasound?
> no because ultrasound is a technological detection metihod, same rule
> as to why cameras fail.

So my sorcery adept with cybereyes cannot target spells save by touch? Paid
essence, useable for spell targeting.

> > (b) someone who has had a cyberware radar system installed (probably at
ruinous
> > Essence cost)?
> similarly its tech, NO.

See above.

> > (c) someone under a Hypersenses spell to give them bat-like sonar?
> >
> nope, same problems as with clairvoyance, not natural [this is ED
> level magic and something i don't want to see in SR as coupled with
> SR magic it is far too powerful, ED being so limited by the effects
> of the horrors)

Counterexample: X-Ray vision from Awakenings. Clairvoyance doesn't work
because it shifts your POV. Anything that enhances your personal senses
should allow you to target spells using that enhancement (as long as it is
either a spell (affects aura) or you have paid essence for it (affects
aura)). Second counterexample: A Low-Light spell, or a physical mage's
low-light enhanced sense. Both should allow targeting. In all these cases,
the LOS still can be traced between the caster and the target. The enhanced
senses just sharpen the picture.

> > So spell locks would be "turn it off, lose a karma"? "turn it
off, lose
the
> > spell and recast next time you want to turn it on"?
> i assume thats it, which is what i have been playing, basically its
> simpler and avoids abusive locking of things like invis and barrier
> spells which becomes very powerful.
>
> > more details about the Anchoring. (I can't recall how practical it is
> > to use an Anchoring focus to hold your increase-reflexes spell like you
> > would a spell lock.)
> reasonably, appart from the fact that long duration temporal links
> are drain heavy.
>
> > and it's hard to get a
> > lot of time on your increase reflexes spell into an Anchoring, that
will
> > seriously slow down mages. (It seems that most magicians I've seen use
> > a spell locked Increase Reflexes as a substitute for wired reflexes
with
> > a reflex trigger.)
> >
> Anchoring will nicely replace a reflex triggered wired (because total
> time activated is quite low) while a masked spell lock is the
> equivalent of wired without the trigger, on all the time but no
> duration problems.
>
> Mark
>


--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)
Message no. 31
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 14:05:58 -0500
On Thursday, November 06, 1997 01:39, Drekhead[SMTP:drekhead@***.NET] wrote:
> On 6 Nov 97 at 17:27, Barbie wrote:
>
> > At 05-Nov-97 wrote Drekhead:
> >
> > >You don't have to wait for your action to move. Also, dropping prone
> > >is a free action. Activating a lock is a free action.
> >
> > Sorry, by the book you must wait. A free action can only be made
> > after the first simple/complex action has taken place by a
> > character. And IIRC activating a look is a simple action.
>
> Is it? Damn I wish I had my books with me. If it does take a simple,
> I don't know why, unless you have to retrieve from a pack or pocket.
> And if you are right about the free action, I had forgotten. We have
> always played with a rule that allows everyone one free action
> at the top of a round, but I admit, it may be a house rule.
>

Activating a focus (which a spell lock is) is a simple action.

--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)
Message no. 32
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 14:47:29 +0500
On 6 Nov 97 at 14:05, Jonathan Hurley wrote:

> Activating a focus (which a spell lock is) is a simple action.

Then like I said, it doesn't make sense. If its in contact with the
mage, isn't it thought activated? Long thought, that.

--

===DREKHEAD==================================drekhead@***.net====
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Alley/6990/index.html
=================================================================
Best file compression around: 'DEL *.*' = 100% compression

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 33
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 14:33:14 -0500
On Thursday, November 06, 1997 04:47, Drekhead[SMTP:drekhead@***.NET]
wrote:
> On 6 Nov 97 at 14:05, Jonathan Hurley wrote:
>
> > Activating a focus (which a spell lock is) is a simple action.
>
> Then like I said, it doesn't make sense. If its in contact with the
> mage, isn't it thought activated? Long thought, that.

Talk to a practicing mage about long thoughts. (I'm not, I know a few).
Consider that it isn't simply a matter of thinking "On", but rather a
mental effort akin to entering a longish password that has no particular
meaning. Sure, you've memorized it, but it may take a bit to trigger the
mnemonics that help you remember it.

(BTW, a spell lock in your pocket is still in contact with you aura...)


--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)
Message no. 34
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 15:37:51 -0500
At 02:47 PM 11/6/97 +0500, Drekhead wrote:

>On 6 Nov 97 at 14:05, Jonathan Hurley wrote:
>
>> Activating a focus (which a spell lock is) is a simple action.
>
>Then like I said, it doesn't make sense. If its in contact with the
>mage, isn't it thought activated? Long thought, that.
>

I guess the point is it isn't all that easy to activate a focus. It is
done by thought, same way a hard physics problem is, doesn't mean it is
done especially quickly.

--DT
Message no. 35
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 15:54:56 +0500
On 6 Nov 97 at 15:37, David Thompson wrote:

> At 02:47 PM 11/6/97 +0500, Drekhead wrote:
> >Then like I said, it doesn't make sense. If its in contact with the
> >mage, isn't it thought activated? Long thought, that.
> >
>
> I guess the point is it isn't all that easy to activate a focus. It
> is done by thought, same way a hard physics problem is, doesn't mean
> it is done especially quickly.

Ok, after two good answers on this subject, I concede the point. I
do play it that way, just had a knee-jerk reaction when I really
thought about it. Thanks guys.

--
===DREKHEAD==================================drekhead@***.net====
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Alley/6990/index.html
=================================================================
Ethernet (n): something used to catch the etherbunny

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 36
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 20:03:42 -0500
Suprise happens, and even with the rules by the book
>cyberware typically gives better speed boosts than pure magic so it
>already stands that if you want your mage to go as fast as the
>sammies then cybering up is the best solution.

Well, I don't think it ridiculous game-balance-wise to require mages to get
cyber to come to terms with the samurai's speed, I do think the idea that
spell theory like that in SR should support spells which give initiative
increases (otherwise it's hard to rationalize other spells which boost
similar abilities, such as Combat Sense).

losthalo@********.comGoFa6)7(Im6TJt)Fe(7P!ShMoB4/19.2Bk!cBkc8MBV6sM3ZG
oPuTeiClbMehC6a23=n4bSSH173g4L??96FmT1Ea4@*********************
4h7sM8zSsYnk6BSMmpFNN0393NHfsSLusOH5Whileyouarelisteningyourwillingat
tentionismakingyoumoreandmoreintothepersonyouwanttobecome.
Message no. 37
From: lucifer <lucifer@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 20:59:23 -0600
losthalo wrote:

> Well, I don't think it ridiculous game-balance-wise to require mages =
to get
> cyber to come to terms with the samurai's speed, I do think the idea =
that
> spell theory like that in SR should support spells which give initiativ=
e
> increases (otherwise it's hard to rationalize other spells which boost
> similar abilities, such as Combat Sense).
>
I've been kinda followin' this whole thread (loosely mind you) and one =

thing comes to mind on the subject of speed and game balance: you

can't ground a spell out through cyberware, but you CAN through spell
locks. There's your game balance right there. So what's the problem?

Lucifer
Prince of Darkness, Eater of Souls

"One owes respect to the living. To the Dead one owes
only Truth."--Voltaire

"When devils will the blackest sins put on, they
do suggest at first with heavenly shows."--Shakespeare,
from 'Othello'
Message no. 38
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:51:05 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-06 11:32:54 EST, barbie@**********.COM writes:

>
> Sorry, by the book you must wait. A free action can only be made after
> the first simple/complex action has taken place by a character.
> And IIRC activating a look is a simple action.
>
>
Actually, activating a lock is a Free Action if you are a magician, it's a
simple action if you are a mundane (and a Willpower test)...or is that
Anchoring Rules?

-K
Message no. 39
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:55:36 -0500
. Firing at the mages is a classical way for GMs to concentrate
>fire on the munchkins because insteed of what most of you are saying most
>munchkins are mages.

Don't make your personal experiences into a sweeping generalization, it's
really silly.


losthalo@********.comGoFa6)7(Im6TJt)Fe(7P!ShMoB4/19.2Bk!cBkc8MBV6sM3ZG
oPuTeiClbMehC6a23=n4bSSH173g4L??96FmT1Ea4@*********************
4h7sM8zSsYnk6BSMmpFNN0393NHfsSLusOH5Whileyouarelisteningyourwillingat
tentionismakingyoumoreandmoreintothepersonyouwanttobecome.
Message no. 40
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 03:57:58 -0500
At 06-Nov-97 wrote J. Keith Henry:


>>
>Actually, activating a lock is a Free Action if you are a magician, it's a
>simple action if you are a mundane (and a Willpower test)...or is that
>Anchoring Rules?

Since mondanes can not activate a foci, it must be a house rule:)

--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evil Overlord advice #50:

My main computers will have their own special operating system
that will be completely incompatible with standard IBM and
Macintosh powerbooks.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 41
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 22:02:32 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-06 14:51:09 EST, jhurley1@************.EDU writes:

>
> And since the elemental is not limited to a certain direction in its sight
> (IMHO, since it doesn't really "see", it perceives...) it can always
> maintain LOS, unless a physical object intervenes.
>
And since the elemental is not in the magicians LOS, he goes free, but if
he's within its own "perceptual range" it remains trapped. Somebody tell me
I just read that correctly and came to that summary correctly....oh
please...I always -KNEW- Elementals were sadists/masochists at heart.

-K
Message no. 42
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:40:15 -0500
On Thursday, November 06, 1997 22:02, J. Keith
Henry[SMTP:Ereskanti@***.COM] wrote:
> In a message dated 97-11-06 14:51:09 EST, jhurley1@************.EDU
writes:
>
> >
> > And since the elemental is not limited to a certain direction in its
sight
> > (IMHO, since it doesn't really "see", it perceives...) it can always
> > maintain LOS, unless a physical object intervenes.
> >
> And since the elemental is not in the magicians LOS, he goes free, but if
> he's within its own "perceptual range" it remains trapped. Somebody tell
me
> I just read that correctly and came to that summary correctly....oh
> please...I always -KNEW- Elementals were sadists/masochists at heart.

I had understood Steve Kenson to be saying that if a line of sight could be
traced between the mage and elemental *regardless of the actual facing,
status of eyelids, et drek cetera* the elemental is bound. sort of a
knowledge on the part of both sides as to the location of the elemental.

--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)
Message no. 43
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 22:31:18 -0500
>Then like I said, it doesn't make sense. If its in contact with the
>mage, isn't it thought activated? Long thought, that.

I might think that activating a magical item is a little more complicated
than saying one word, the extent of a Free action. It might even require
specifically touching the item, like a fetish, for activation.

losthalo@********.comGoFa6)7(Im6TJt)Fe(7P!ShMoB4/19.2Bk!cBkc8MBV6sM3ZG
oPuTeiClbMehC6a23=n4bSSH173g4L??96FmT1Ea4@*********************
4h7sM8zSsYnk6BSMmpFNN0393NHfsSLusOH5Whileyouarelisteningyourwillingat
tentionismakingyoumoreandmoreintothepersonyouwanttobecome.
Message no. 44
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 23:15:20 -0500
At 12:14 PM 11/6/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>SPELL LOCKS
>>
>>1) eliminate the whole "mundanes can't see or interact with
>>spell locks" thing because it's caused way too much confusion;
>
>>2) make locks
>>more like they were in 1st edition SR (expendable) rather than the on/off
>>magic items they've become in SR2.
>
>I love these two ideas because they make spell locks almost entirely
>useless. The first one makes them vulnerable to destruction by theives.
Awwh, poor mage. :( Not only can someone steal his power focus
necklace, they can walk off with his body-jewelry (tongue-piercing?) spell
lock, too... Sorry, but I don't think the intangibility ever made sense
(and has never really even been *explained*).

>The
>second means that if you ever use a ward or other astral barrier, you can't
>pass it without destroying your lock. If I remember correctly, Medicine
>Lodges act as astral barriers (at least they did in SR1), so shaman are
>particularly hosed. This is good, because _real_ magicians don't use toys.
>It also slots off powergamers, who seem absurdly fond of spell locks.
Well, I don't necessarily think locks are a bad thing, but the on/off
switch is maybe a bad idea. Locks were powerful enough when they were
'Armor: 4 successes). And remember they'll always be astrally vulnerable
now, no 'turn it off to escape getting grounded. :) Perhaps simply allow
magicians to 'turn off' the barrier effect of their own circles/lodges,
since it is a side-effect anyway?

>>SPELL VS. SPELL
>
>One thing that would help in this area is an example or two of what a spell
>"looks like" in astral space. I've always played them as animal-like.
>Sustained spells appear in some form commesurate with their effect. For
>barriers, the barrier itself is a grey, opaque sphere, and the animal sits
>inside. This leads to an interesting question: where is the astral form of
>the spell, inside or outside the barrier? Can the spell itself be attacked
>without penetrating the barrier? From either side?
How about this: The barrier *is* the spell. The target is *inside* the
spell. :) Thus, you can contact it to break it (dispelling, astral combat,
etc.) without fighting through the barrier first, and the imagery is simple
(perhaps rule that spells are at least translucent, so you can see Mr. Mage
hiding inside his little critter). I like the creature imagery, it's how
we've always described astral presences (barriers, spells, even foci).

losthalo

losthalo@********.comGoFa6)7(Im6TJt)Fe(7P!ShMoB4/19.2Bk!cBkc8MBV6sM3ZG
oPuTeiClbMehC6a23=n4bSSH173g4L??96FmT1Ea4@*********************
4h7sM8zSsYnk6BSMmpFNN0393NHfsSLusOH5Whileyouarelisteningyourwillingat
tentionismakingyoumoreandmoreintothepersonyouwanttobecome.
Message no. 45
From: Les Ward <lward@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 14:30:13 -0500
On Thu, 6 Nov 1997 23:15:20 -0500, losthalo <losthalo@********.COM> said:

> How about this: The barrier *is* the spell. The target is *inside*
> the spell. :) Thus, you can contact it to break it (dispelling,
> astral combat, etc.) without fighting through the barrier first, and
> the imagery is simple (perhaps rule that spells are at least
> translucent, so you can see Mr. Mage hiding inside his little critter).

Alas, making them work like this changes what the barrier spells do pretty
significantly. If the spell _is_ the barrier, then having the barrier
reduce the target of a spell (which is what a mana barrier does, by the
book), doesn't really make any sence. If the spell gets through, it will
only be by destroying the barrier spell. You also have to allow spells to
be cast at other spells. Also, the translucent stuff you mention is a
radical departure from the current rules, as astral barriers are meant to
be astrally opaque. That's the whole point of them.

Kenson's method (which is the way the rules work, as far as I can tell) is
better, with the spell _generating_ the barrier. It just is more internally
consistant. Any spell designer with a brain would place the astral form of
the spell itself inside the barrier, forcing invaders to break through the
barrier by force rather than attacking the spell directly. Game
mechanically, though it might be the same.

Wordman
Message no. 46
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 08:27:51 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-07 00:41:01 EST, barbie@**********.COM writes:

> >Actually, activating a lock is a Free Action if you are a magician, it's a
> >simple action if you are a mundane (and a Willpower test)...or is that
> >Anchoring Rules?
>
> Since mondanes can not activate a foci, it must be a house rule:)
>
Grimoire II, page 48...lower right column...."If the user is a mundane (no
magic attribute), it requires a Willpower (4) Test to active the link."

Sorry folks, -not- a house rule, just as I thought originally, Anchoring Rule
not Locks.


-K
Message no. 47
From: Tim Cooper <z-i-m@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 12:47:27 EST
On Fri, 7 Nov 1997 03:57:58 -0500 Barbie <barbie@**********.COM> writes:
>At 06-Nov-97 wrote J. Keith Henry:
>
>
>>>
>>Actually, activating a lock is a Free Action if you are a magician,
it's a
>>simple action if you are a mundane (and a Willpower test)...or is that
>>Anchoring Rules?
>
>Since mondanes can not activate a foci, it must be a house rule:)

Actually, it's an Anchoring rule.. Mundanes can't activate foci at all
(no use for them), but Anchorings can be triggered by mundanes.

~Tim (sorry no page numbers, my grimmy isn't here ATM)
Message no. 48
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:46:31 GMT
Jonathan Hurley writes

> > > Would this work for
> > > (a) someone who has cyberware installed to let them sense objects with
> > > ultrasound?
> > no because ultrasound is a technological detection metihod, same rule
> > as to why cameras fail.
>
> So my sorcery adept with cybereyes cannot target spells save by touch? Paid
> essence, useable for spell targeting.
Ah replacements for your normally allowed senses count yes, it says
so in the book. The cyber eyes allow you to see light, the ultrasond
system would require a 'technological' transmit and detect, you
cannot naturally detect and target someone by that without cyber and
there is a difference between detecting someone by ultrasound (or
regular sound for that matter) and seeing them

> > > (b) someone who has had a cyberware radar system installed (probably at
> ruinous
> > > Essence cost)?
> > similarly its tech, NO.
>
> See above.
>
Again though you need a tech transmitter. so you get a 'processed by
electronics image of the radar return telling you where they are'
that is not the same as being able to see the target, spells require
LOS, which is different to knowing where the guy is, are you saying
i may manabolt the guy behind the door because i just saw him open
the door go through and close it, i know where he is after all.

> > > (c) someone under a Hypersenses spell to give them bat-like sonar?
> > >
> > nope, same problems as with clairvoyance, not natural [this is ED
> > level magic and something i don't want to see in SR as coupled with
> > SR magic it is far too powerful, ED being so limited by the effects
> > of the horrors)
>
> Counterexample: X-Ray vision from Awakenings. Clairvoyance doesn't work
> because it shifts your POV. Anything that enhances your personal senses
> should allow you to target spells using that enhancement (as long as it is
> either a spell (affects aura) or you have paid essence for it (affects
> aura)). Second counterexample: A Low-Light spell, or a physical mage's
> low-light enhanced sense. Both should allow targeting. In all these cases,
> the LOS still can be traced between the caster and the target. The enhanced
> senses just sharpen the picture.
>
No X ray vision affects the objects in the way so you can see through
them. It doesn't affect your vision. It is not a hypersense spell. A
low light spell is more open to debate as all it does is improve your
vision, its not allowing you to see them just see them better than
you could without.

As to ' The enhanced senses just sharpen the picture.' fine but your
hypersense spell is not enhancing a sense its porviding a new one, a
BIG difference magically speaking.

Mark
Message no. 49
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 14:07:31 GMT
Drekhead writes
> On 6 Nov 97 at 9:58, Mark Steedman wrote:
>
> > Ok i see you like this from a 'vision' rather than game balance
> > point of view. If you as a GM run your game with this in mind and
> > are fair to the poor mages who will only get vary rare actions
> <snipped, point taken>
fine. I'm trying to note the fact that you may well take account of
your ruling in how you run your game.

>
> Never heard a complaint. But I'm starting to think, does every other
> game in the world have mages casting/locking increase reflex spells
> on themselves? I find this real hard to believe.
No but in my experience if the 'sammies' of the party start loading up
on wired reflexes then generally the magicians end up with increased
reflexes, the simple fact of the matter is that if more than one or
at most two party members are booted up then iot can get very boring
for those who are not when the team meets booted up opposition. (they
take runs against folks that can afford to boost their goons becuase
they can do them as a team)

In the first SR game i played we started with.
Merc : wired 1
Rigger : VCR 2
Shaman : straight.
and My Mage with locked +3D6
[only the GM having played any SR before the day we generated the
characters]
It was very noticeable that to begin with i always went first, did
that make by PC the toughtest, no not really, but it did mean in
combat the Shaman really didn't do much. Eventually, it balanced at
Merc wired 2 and the shaman also spell locked at which point the Merc
almost always went first. Working as a team with the rigger running
drones it worked well but anyone playing an unboosted character
scould have gotten very bored.

The ltest game i have been playing the only initiative boosting of
any sort in the entire party is Physad +1D6, nothing else at all, but
then those characters started as gangers not runners. (not that
theres much difference)

> But from the
> responses I've gotten, everyone seems to think I am "cheating" my
> players. They know the rules going in, and play mages anyway.
Yeah, but my main gripe is that unless you run SR somewhat
differently to a GM with speed boosting magic that someone like
myself who likes magicians but from aroleplaying point of view likes
to play magicians with no cyberware/bioware etc in them (although a
trauma damper is even more useful than wired reflexes!, consider
drain) would have a big problem playing the sort of character i
prefer and enjoying it. Run a game with this limit in mind and 'play
fair' and fine i can see why your players are happy.

> I
> myself have played a shaman and a sorcerer adept in two games, and
> neither one of them learned Increase Reflexes spell, and I didn't
> find myself at a disadvantage.
>

As i said i can see why assuming the game is suitable, but i have met
GM's where +3D6 reflexes still leads to you sitting about in combats
awaiting a chance to get out of the firing line before colateral
damage blows your character appart.


> > And heaven
> > forbid the party gets ambushed, oh 'because you want to play your
> > magcian pure you MUST stand there and get shot multiple times NO
> > SOLUTION' i don't agree,
>
> If the party is ambushed, everyone can be shot at if they are
> surprised. Speed won't make a difference.
I think before you trimmed this i excluded the 'actually suprised'
case because even moveby wire 4 doesn't help much then. The case i'm
thinking of is 'ambush which you spot, all roll initiative as it goes
off' at which point fast characters stand a good chance of doodging
the first attack (with combat pool) and then getting in cover before
they get shot again, slow ones just have to stand there getting shot
again and again.

> If the mage is "on duty"
> and doesn't have mask, invisibility, or a barrier up, or a spirit or
> elemental protection, he deserves whatever he gets.
>
If on duty and anticipating combat sure. But if you are out in the
barrens minding your own business or trying to sneak in without piles
of magicical activity so you don't alter astral security you cannot
use such measures. eg.
'gnagers at the fence, oh yawn lets watch' : (disgused sammie
sneaking about)
'drone spotted, um may be trouble, is it scouting or what i suggest
you alert security to have a lookabout'. Rigger
'mage in the astral, SHADOWRUNNERS, alert we have a mage breaking in
they are rare get security on alert' : magicians can casue a lot of
trouble of they aren't very careful.

> > i like to be able to roleplay (refuse to
> > cyber up by magician characters) yet have a reasonable chance of at
> > least eating dirt/cover before the sammies second action.
>
> You don't have to wait for your action to move. Also, dropping prone
> is a free action. Activating a lock is a free action.
Yes you do. As a few others pointed out you may not act in initatives
above what you rolled at all (no free actions) unless you have
'delayed an action' (no you don't have a delayed action walking down
the street staying that tensed for more than a couple of minutes will
cramp muscles etc). Droppong prone is a free action (but not much
use in the middle of the road), jumping over a wall / diving behind a
dumpster etc may not take an action but can only be initiated at one
of your actions. Activating foci is a simple action, and requires you
live long enough to get an action.

> > Suprise
> > happens, and even with the rules by the book cyberware typically
> > gives better speed boosts than pure magic so it already stands that
> > if you want your mage to go as fast as the sammies then cybering up
> > is the best solution.
>
> Exactly.
>
Yes true, but i like to be able to get enough boost out of magic to
stand a chance of running for cover when i meet a sammie not just
having to stand there while he drills me.

Mark
Message no. 50
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 19:37:05 -0500
Mark Steedman[SMTP:M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK] wrote:
> Jonathan Hurley writes
>
> > > > Would this work for
> > > > (a) someone who has cyberware installed to let them sense =
objects with
> > > > ultrasound?
> > > no because ultrasound is a technological detection metihod, same =
rule
> > > as to why cameras fail.
> >
> > So my sorcery adept with cybereyes cannot target spells save by =
touch? Paid
> > essence, useable for spell targeting.
> Ah replacements for your normally allowed senses count yes, it says
> so in the book. The cyber eyes allow you to see light, the ultrasond
> system would require a 'technological' transmit and detect, you
> cannot naturally detect and target someone by that without cyber and
> there is a difference between detecting someone by ultrasound (or
> regular sound for that matter) and seeing them
> > > > (b) someone who has had a cyberware radar system installed =
(probably at
> > ruinous
> > > > Essence cost)?
> > > similarly its tech, NO.
> >
> > See above.
> >
> Again though you need a tech transmitter. so you get a 'processed by
> electronics image of the radar return telling you where they are'
> that is not the same as being able to see the target, spells require
> LOS, which is different to knowing where the guy is, are you saying
> i may manabolt the guy behind the door because i just saw him open
> the door go through and close it, i know where he is after all.
>
Ah, I see the thrust of your argument. I don't know if I agree with it =
or not, though. You are saying that only *natural* senses, =
cybernetically enhanced, can be used for spell targeting. My point here =
is that anything that provides a sight picture, and has been paid for =
with essence, can be used to target a spell. Specifically, in what way =
is a cybernetic sonar or radar system different from a cybernetic =
thermographic system? (Other than the fact that the thermograph system =
is a "passive" system. For the purposes of this discussion, consider =
that an active sonar/radar system acts much like a eyeball and =
flashlight setup.) Remember, for a human, elf, or ork, thermographic =
vision is NOT a natural sense.

Or are you saying that a spell cannot be targeted if the mage is using =
visible light and a flashlight?

> > > > (c) someone under a Hypersenses spell to give them bat-like =
sonar?
> > > >
> > > nope, same problems as with clairvoyance, not natural [this is ED
> > > level magic and something i don't want to see in SR as coupled =
with
> > > SR magic it is far too powerful, ED being so limited by the =
effects
> > > of the horrors)
> >
> > Counterexample: X-Ray vision from Awakenings. Clairvoyance doesn't =
work
> > because it shifts your POV. Anything that enhances your personal =
senses
> > should allow you to target spells using that enhancement (as long as =
it is
> > either a spell (affects aura) or you have paid essence for it =
(affects
> > aura)). Second counterexample: A Low-Light spell, or a physical =
mage's
> > low-light enhanced sense. Both should allow targeting. In all these =
cases,
> > the LOS still can be traced between the caster and the target. The =
enhanced
> > senses just sharpen the picture.
> >
> No X ray vision affects the objects in the way so you can see through
> them. It doesn't affect your vision. It is not a hypersense spell. A
> low light spell is more open to debate as all it does is improve your
> vision, its not allowing you to see them just see them better than
> you could without.

How does a Detection Spell affect other objects? Without having to touch =
them, or use the object resistance table? It is a hypersense spell by =
the definition in the book, it gives an [unnatural] sense. (I don't have =
my book handy, but that is the gist of it.)


> As to ' The enhanced senses just sharpen the picture.' fine but your
> hypersense spell is not enhancing a sense its providing a new one, a
> BIG difference magically speaking.

That doesn't follow. Thermographic vision is a "new" sense for =
metahumans who aren't dwarves or trolls, so why can everyone use it to =
target spells (if they have a cybereye with thermographic built in)?

I can see a shaman having problems with a cybernetic sonar/radar system, =
but not a hermetic.

--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)
Message no. 51
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 04:50:05 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-14 20:29:12 EST, jhurley1@************.EDU writes:

> Ah, I see the thrust of your argument. I don't know if I agree with it or
> not, though. You are saying that only *natural* senses, cybernetically
> enhanced, can be used for spell targeting. My point here is that anything
> that provides a sight picture, and has been paid for with essence, can be
> used to target a spell. Specifically, in what way is a cybernetic sonar or
> radar system different from a cybernetic thermographic system? (Other than

> the fact that the thermograph system is a "passive" system. For the
purposes
> of this discussion, consider that an active sonar/radar system acts much
like
> a eyeball and flashlight setup.) Remember, for a human, elf, or ork,
> thermographic vision is NOT a natural sense.

That's okay guy, for anyone born before 2011 (ignoring the obvious
exceptions), Astral Perception is itself, not a -natural- sense.

My point, I don't know about the other guys, is this Quicksilver. What it
takes to ground or to 'align' a spell in such a way as to make it work will
vary widely. Sound is a part of it and can, in theory, be done. That is the
basis of the argument for the reduced point cost for the Blindness Flaw in SR
Comp. Assensing goes much beyond sight, we as 'human' beings simply relate
things better in that fashion.

You want to consider something really different, try this. An Insect (such
as Ant or Termite) doesn't base the majority of their sensory communication
and interactive input from sight as we do. They base it upon scent. Now why
don't you go run off in a corner and figure out what would happen if one
tried to route a spellcasting via scent.

I realize that SR, and the majority of the players/GM's out there, are going
to use the "sight-based" astral perception for a long time to come. And in
all honesty, for as long as that is going to happen, the "spirits" of the
game will always refer to human beings (meta or otherwise) as "not
understanding the big picture."

> Or are you saying that a spell cannot be targeted if the mage is using
> visible light and a flashlight?

In a way, he is yes.

> How does a Detection Spell affect other objects? Without having to touch
> them, or use the object resistance table? It is a hypersense spell by the
> definition in the book, it gives an [unnatural] sense. (I don't have my
book
> handy, but that is the gist of it.)

Okay, first of all the term is "Supernatural", not "Unnatural". That
approach means a world of difference in the schematics of understanding
Dogma. "Super" in regards to nature, is indicative of something that is
"Extreme" or "Above Average". "Un" directs itself towards
those things that
are beyond the reach of natural law. And -Nature- is pretty intense in SR,
regarding the fact that "Earth" is considered a living organism in many
regards.

Secondly, a detection spell can be designed to do so, the principle thing to
be considered is whether or not the GM governing such will allow it. For
many, if not most, it won't be allowed because of the potential shifts in the
overall game mechanics and/or balance.

Me, I like a player that is allowed to challenge me...

> That doesn't follow. Thermographic vision is a "new" sense for metahumans
> who aren't dwarves or trolls, so why can everyone use it to target spells
(if
> they have a cybereye with thermographic built in)?

Good argument, just think of that when you go to nail that guy on the other
side of the doorway whose heat signature is visible to the dwarf but not to
the human...

> I can see a shaman having problems with a cybernetic sonar/radar system,
but
> not a hermetic.

Really??? Why???

Sound is the transmissive intensity of another object or entities interaction
with the medium of Air or Skies. Vibration is the transmissive in regards to
Earth or Water. All have to do with an Elemental Correlation. Cyberware
deals in essence paid for a given thing, at least for SR. Isn't that price
enough?

-K
Message no. 52
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic Questions & Answers
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:40:33 -0500
J. Keith Henry[SMTP:Ereskanti@***.COM] wrote:
[snip lengthy reply to my stuff about spell targeting via cybernetic systems other than
vision]

Uhhh, are you for spell targeting by cybernetic radar/sonar/whatever or against it?

I'm for it.

--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Magic Questions & Answers, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!