Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	"D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject:	Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Thu, 8 Oct 1998 07:53:20 -0500

Message no. 1 Okay the Spell Deffinitions thread gave me some ideas:

1) Can you make Manipulation spells that mimic some of the Detection
Spells? (For those Asspected Magicians) For example, a Periscope spell
that refracts and magnifies light so that it behaves similar to the
Clairvoyance spell BUT the target point must be within the mages current
LOS AND the spell does not allow you to see anything that is not within
your LOS.

2) Can Reflective Shielding be used to reflect an attack onto someone
other than the original caster? (perhaps Deflective Shileding could be a
new metamagical technique?)

2b) If 2) can be done, is any spell that is reflected/deflected
restricted by the original caster's LOS, the current deflecting mage's
LOS, or both? (If both then a spell could be defleted to several mages
and the LOS available to the spell would be contiously reduced.)

3) If a mage casts an AoE spell centered on himself, does it effect
anyone behind him/her? (IOW, does field of vision reduce LOS? [See 5)])

4) Looney the psychotic/suicidal intiated mage casts an attack spell on
himself but then uses reflective shielding to reflect the spell back on
the attacker. What happens? (It seems fairly straight forward but it's
interesting contemplating it.)

5) Does a mage have to look at him/herself to cast a spell on
him/herself? A mage obviously falls or can fall into his/her own LOS
since s/he can cast spells on him/herself, but is this an automatic
thing?

6) Could a Physical Manipulation spell be used to create a floating
mirror (or mirrored surface)? and if so, can it be used to enhance LOS?
(If not you can always levitate a mirror ...)

If I think of anything else, I tell ya :)

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"Long hair eliminates the need for barbers" -- Einstein

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

From:	Steve Eley <sfeley@***.NET>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Thu, 8 Oct 1998 10:02:40 -0400

Message no. 2 D. Ghost wrote:
>
> 1) Can you make Manipulation spells that mimic some of the Detection
> Spells? (For those Asspected Magicians) For example, a Periscope spell
> that refracts and magnifies light so that it behaves similar to the
> Clairvoyance spell BUT the target point must be within the mages current
> LOS AND the spell does not allow you to see anything that is not within
> your LOS.

Probably, but the point of a periscope (which is what you're calling the
spell) is to see things that AREN'T in your line-of-sight. And I'd
probably give this spell an annoying Drain. Nine times out of ten it'd be
simpler just to use fiber optics.

> 2) Can Reflective Shielding be used to reflect an attack onto someone
> other than the original caster? (perhaps Deflective Shileding could be a
> new metamagical technique?)

Eek! No, no, the munchkinism is too horrible to contemplate...

> 3) If a mage casts an AoE spell centered on himself, does it effect
> anyone behind him/her? (IOW, does field of vision reduce LOS? [See 5)])

I would say yes, but the book appears to say no. I never did like how the
LOS rules interacted with area-effect spells.

> 4) Looney the psychotic/suicidal intiated mage casts an attack spell on
> himself but then uses reflective shielding to reflect the spell back on
> the attacker. What happens? (It seems fairly straight forward but it's
> interesting contemplating it.)

The N-dimensional thaumic feedback loop discharges mana into the
improbosphere, disjointing the Murphy continuum. The result will be a
large cow falling from space, directly onto the area occupied by the
magician.

> 5) Does a mage have to look at him/herself to cast a spell on
> him/herself? A mage obviously falls or can fall into his/her own LOS
> since s/he can cast spells on him/herself, but is this an automatic
> thing?

I'd think so. The point of the LOS requirement is to know exactly where
the target's aura is, to discharge the energy into it. Locating your own
aura should never be a problem.

> 6) Could a Physical Manipulation spell be used to create a floating
> mirror (or mirrored surface)? and if so, can it be used to enhance LOS?
> (If not you can always levitate a mirror ...)

Yes, but it'd make more sense to use an illusion spell. I'd probably give
a manipulation Mirror spell Serious or Deadly Drain.

Have Fun,
- Steve Eley
sfeley@***.net

From:	Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Thu, 8 Oct 1998 10:20:41 -0400

Message no. 3 On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, D. Ghost wrote:

->Okay the Spell Deffinitions thread gave me some ideas:
->
->1) Can you make Manipulation spells that mimic some of the Detection
->Spells? (For those Asspected Magicians) For example, a Periscope spell
->that refracts and magnifies light so that it behaves similar to the
->Clairvoyance spell BUT the target point must be within the mages current
->LOS AND the spell does not allow you to see anything that is not within
->your LOS.

Er, I'd have to say no with regards to hypersenses. For simply
adjusting LOS, a spell that makes a mirrored Barrier is quite simple.

->2) Can Reflective Shielding be used to reflect an attack onto someone
->other than the original caster? (perhaps Deflective Shileding could be a
->new metamagical technique?)
->
->2b) If 2) can be done, is any spell that is reflected/deflected
->restricted by the original caster's LOS, the current deflecting mage's
->LOS, or both? (If both then a spell could be defleted to several mages
->and the LOS available to the spell would be contiously reduced.)

I've never heard of Reflective Shielding (I assume it was in
Awakenings) so I'll venture opinions: 2) Yes if) it was a manipulation
spell and )if there is a success roll of some kind for the mage
redirecting it.

->3) If a mage casts an AoE spell centered on himself, does it effect
->anyone behind him/her? (IOW, does field of vision reduce LOS? [See 5)])

If assensing, yes, if using normal vision, only in front, unless
you're talking about an elemental manipulation, in which case a simple yes
regardless of LOS.

->4) Looney the psychotic/suicidal intiated mage casts an attack spell on
->himself but then uses reflective shielding to reflect the spell back on
->the attacker. What happens? (It seems fairly straight forward but it's
->interesting contemplating it.)

He nukes himself... ]:-) Which is probably a good thing.

->5) Does a mage have to look at him/herself to cast a spell on
->him/herself? A mage obviously falls or can fall into his/her own LOS
->since s/he can cast spells on him/herself, but is this an automatic
->thing?

No(first part), because the mage would be enough in tune with
his/her aura to not have to see his/herself. Yes to second part.

->6) Could a Physical Manipulation spell be used to create a floating
->mirror (or mirrored surface)? and if so, can it be used to enhance LOS?
->(If not you can always levitate a mirror ...)

Yes, see my mirrored barrier above. I also utilize illusions of
mirrors to the same effect... ]:-) Of course, in both cases, the mirror
works both ways.....

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?

From:	Shaun Gilroy <shaung@**********.NET>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Thu, 8 Oct 1998 10:15:04 -0400

Message no. 4 At 10:02 AM 10/8/98 -0400, you wrote:
>D. Ghost wrote:
>>
>> 1) Can you make Manipulation spells that mimic some of the Detection
>> Spells? (For those Asspected Magicians) For example, a Periscope spell
>> that refracts and magnifies light so that it behaves similar to the
>> Clairvoyance spell BUT the target point must be within the mages current
>> LOS AND the spell does not allow you to see anything that is not within
>> your LOS.
>
>Probably, but the point of a periscope (which is what you're calling the
>spell) is to see things that AREN'T in your line-of-sight. And I'd
>probably give this spell an annoying Drain. Nine times out of ten it'd be
>simpler just to use fiber optics.
>
>

I don't know that jacking up the drain would be nessecary. Sustaining
spells and casting on top of them have a tendency to be a major pain in the
rectum for the average PC magician. Not to mention such a set-up would be
time consuming to achieve in a situation of combat.

I'd rule it as perfectly reasonable for a basic spell because the gap
between theory and reality is reasonably vast here.

(>)noysh the spoonë bard
-> jack of all trades, master of none. <-

From:	Chris Maxfield <cmaxfiel@****.ORG.AU>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Fri, 9 Oct 1998 01:09:10 +1000

Message no. 5 At 07:53 8/10/98 -0500, D. Ghost wrote:
>1) Can you make Manipulation spells that mimic some of the Detection
>Spells? (For those Asspected Magicians) For example, a Periscope spell
>that refracts and magnifies light so that it behaves similar to the
>Clairvoyance spell BUT the target point must be within the mages current
>LOS AND the spell does not allow you to see anything that is not within
>your LOS.

Can't see why not. It'd fun trying to design the spell and convincing the
GM it's a valid spell.

>2) Can Reflective Shielding be used to reflect an attack onto someone
>other than the original caster? (perhaps Deflective Shileding could be a
>new metamagical technique?)

For Reflective Shielding, nope. It simply says that the spell is reflected
back onto the caster. But if you want to invent new metamagical techniques,
the sky's the limit.

>3) If a mage casts an AoE spell centered on himself, does it effect
>anyone behind him/her? (IOW, does field of vision reduce LOS? [See 5)])

If it's an elemental manipulation, yep. Otherwise, only if he can see them
somehow; if he can't see them he can't affect them.

>4) Looney the psychotic/suicidal intiated mage casts an attack spell on
>himself but then uses reflective shielding to reflect the spell back on
>the attacker. What happens? (It seems fairly straight forward but it's
>interesting contemplating it.)

Statistically, by dribs and drabs he'll suffer the spell effects until it
vanishes. If it's a nice visible spell like flame bomb, it'll be an
entertaining show for spectators.

>5) Does a mage have to look at him/herself to cast a spell on
>him/herself? A mage obviously falls or can fall into his/her own LOS
>since s/he can cast spells on him/herself, but is this an automatic
>thing?

As SR3 (on page 181) has stated that a caster is always affected by his own
area spells, if he's within the area-of-effect, I'll say that a magician
must always be able to synchronies with his own aura without looking and
therefore can cast spells on himself without looking at himself.

>6) Could a Physical Manipulation spell be used to create a floating
>mirror (or mirrored surface)? and if so, can it be used to enhance LOS?

Can't see why not. A spell in every Cat shaman's grimiore. :-)

Chris Maxfield
<cmaxfiel@****.org.au>
------------------------------------------
"It is easier not to believe in electrons than in dragons: electrons,
at least taken singly, won't try to make a meal of you."
- Stanislaw Lem
----------------------------------------
Canberra, Australia

From:	Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Thu, 8 Oct 1998 13:10:30 -0400

Message no. 6 At 07:53 AM 10/8/98 -0500, you wrote:

>1) Can you make Manipulation spells that mimic some of the Detection
>Spells? (For those Asspected Magicians) For example, a Periscope spell
>that refracts and magnifies light so that it behaves similar to the
>Clairvoyance spell BUT the target point must be within the mages current
>LOS AND the spell does not allow you to see anything that is not within
>your LOS.

Um...okay. The part of the periscope is where the caster can see it, but
the end part of the periscope is around some corner or other, right? Using
Manipulations...hmmm. I suppose so. It's such a low-tech item and
wouldn't be much good for other than looking around corners and such, sure.
But I don't think I would allow it to be used for gaining LOS for casting
*another* spell.

>2) Can Reflective Shielding be used to reflect an attack onto someone
>other than the original caster? (perhaps Deflective Shileding could be a
>new metamagical technique?)

Heyell no. And "Deflective Shielding" has far too much potential for abuse.

>3) If a mage casts an AoE spell centered on himself, does it effect
>anyone behind him/her? (IOW, does field of vision reduce LOS? [See 5)])

Field of vision does reduce LOS, as it normally would.

>4) Looney the psychotic/suicidal intiated mage casts an attack spell on
>himself but then uses reflective shielding to reflect the spell back on
>the attacker. What happens? (It seems fairly straight forward but it's
>interesting contemplating it.)

I like Steve Eley's answer to this one (I think it was him). But I think
that it would be a 10-ton carp that lands upon Looney's head, not a cow.

>5) Does a mage have to look at him/herself to cast a spell on
>him/herself? A mage obviously falls or can fall into his/her own LOS
>since s/he can cast spells on him/herself, but is this an automatic
>thing?

LOS strictly speaking isn't required for casting spell on oneself. You can
always synch auras or whatever your magical theory is, with yourself. No
LOS required.

>6) Could a Physical Manipulation spell be used to create a floating
>mirror (or mirrored surface)? and if so, can it be used to enhance LOS?
>(If not you can always levitate a mirror ...)

I think you could create a mirrored surface, but I'm not sure about using
it to gain LOS. One the one hand, it seems too munchkinous. One the other
hand, you could easily rule that the since the mirror is magical, it won't
reflect mana like a real mirror would (assuming that's what mirrors do).
Or some other theory that would disallow it. But I basically wouldn't
allow that part of the question.

Erik J.

http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World

From:	Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Thu, 8 Oct 1998 13:25:54 -0700

Message no. 7 :->6) Could a Physical Manipulation spell be used to create a floating
:->mirror (or mirrored surface)? and if so, can it be used to enhance
LOS?
:->(If not you can always levitate a mirror ...)
:
: Yes, see my mirrored barrier above. I also utilize illusions of
:mirrors to the same effect... ]:-) Of course, in both cases, the mirror
:works both ways.....

I'd have to question the "illusion of a mirror". Yes, you could
create an illusion of a mirror. However, you would be controlling what
was "reflected" in the mirror, so unless you already had LOS to the area
viewed in the mirror, the image would be a (convincing) lie, not valid for
LOS.
If they create valid images of things the mage has no knowledge of,
illusion spells could be used as (very powerful) detection spells; "I'll
just create an illusionary tridview of what is currently happening inside
Aztechnolgy's boardroom". NOT.

Mongoose

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:25:29 +0200

Message no. 8 According to D. Ghost, at 7:53 on 8 Oct 98, the word on the street was...

> 1) Can you make Manipulation spells that mimic some of the Detection
> Spells? (For those Asspected Magicians)

If you do it in a clever enough way, probably yes. However the things you
could detect would be fairly limited compared to those a true Detection
spell can do. I'd say that if it can be done with simple technology
(mirrors, speaking tubes, etc.), it might be doable with a Manipulation
spell, too.

> For example, a Periscope spell that refracts and magnifies light so that
> it behaves similar to the Clairvoyance spell BUT the target point must
> be within the mages current LOS AND the spell does not allow you to see
> anything that is not within your LOS.

That last requirement kinda completely negates the spell's usefulness,
IMHO...

> 2) Can Reflective Shielding be used to reflect an attack onto someone
> other than the original caster? (perhaps Deflective Shileding could be a
> new metamagical technique?)

No, IMO.

> 2b) If 2) can be done, is any spell that is reflected/deflected
> restricted by the original caster's LOS, the current deflecting mage's
> LOS, or both? (If both then a spell could be defleted to several mages
> and the LOS available to the spell would be contiously reduced.)

If you allow it, I'd base it on the LOS of _both_ magicians, just to stop
this from getting out of hand.

> 3) If a mage casts an AoE spell centered on himself, does it effect
> anyone behind him/her? (IOW, does field of vision reduce LOS? [See 5)])

I'd probably say no, though it's a subjective ruling based on the
definition of LOS; there are as many arguments for "yes" as there are for
"no," most likely.

> 4) Looney the psychotic/suicidal intiated mage casts an attack spell on
> himself but then uses reflective shielding to reflect the spell back on
> the attacker. What happens? (It seems fairly straight forward but it's
> interesting contemplating it.)

It reflects to the caster -- i.e. the looney.

> 5) Does a mage have to look at him/herself to cast a spell on
> him/herself? A mage obviously falls or can fall into his/her own LOS
> since s/he can cast spells on him/herself, but is this an automatic
> thing?

No, as far as I'm concerned. You can always cast a spell on yourself
because you always know where you are. (Barring unusual circumstances like
being drugged up or having rare nerve disorders.)

> 6) Could a Physical Manipulation spell be used to create a floating
> mirror (or mirrored surface)? and if so, can it be used to enhance LOS?

I don't see why not on both counts.

> (If not you can always levitate a mirror ...)

That would be the easy option, yes.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Love don't live here anymore.
She had to move out when Cobain shot himself.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

From:	Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Thu, 8 Oct 1998 15:43:37 -0400

Message no. 9 On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, Mongoose wrote:

->:->6) Could a Physical Manipulation spell be used to create a floating
->:->mirror (or mirrored surface)? and if so, can it be used to enhance
->LOS?
->:->(If not you can always levitate a mirror ...)
->:
->: Yes, see my mirrored barrier above. I also utilize illusions of
->:mirrors to the same effect... ]:-) Of course, in both cases, the mirror
->:works both ways.....
->
->
-> I'd have to question the "illusion of a mirror". Yes, you could
->create an illusion of a mirror. However, you would be controlling what
->was "reflected" in the mirror, so unless you already had LOS to the area
->viewed in the mirror, the image would be a (convincing) lie, not valid for
->LOS.
-> If they create valid images of things the mage has no knowledge of,
->illusion spells could be used as (very powerful) detection spells; "I'll
->just create an illusionary tridview of what is currently happening inside
->Aztechnolgy's boardroom". NOT.

"I make an illusion of a piece of highly reflective silver."
Light doesn't know the difference. I suppose what could really solve this
question is: do illusion throw natural shadows? If they do, they must
block light, and if they block light, they can bend light and if they can
bend light, you can have an illusion of a mirror that performs the same
functions of a mirror. Am I the only fellow that has used an illusion of
a torch to light a room? Or the illusion of a really big gun to
intimidate people?

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?

From:	Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Thu, 8 Oct 1998 16:00:56 -0400

Message no. 10 At 07:53 AM 10-8-98 -0500, you wrote:
>Okay the Spell Deffinitions thread gave me some ideas:
>
>1) Can you make Manipulation spells that mimic some of the Detection
>Spells? (For those Asspected Magicians) For example, a Periscope spell
>that refracts and magnifies light so that it behaves similar to the
>Clairvoyance spell BUT the target point must be within the mages current
>LOS AND the spell does not allow you to see anything that is not within
>your LOS.

IMHO, yes. However, the spell mechanics and TN would be different because
the spell is functioning in a different manner.

>2) Can Reflective Shielding be used to reflect an attack onto someone
>other than the original caster? (perhaps Deflective Shileding could be a
>new metamagical technique?)
>
>2b) If 2) can be done, is any spell that is reflected/deflected
>restricted by the original caster's LOS, the current deflecting mage's
>LOS, or both? (If both then a spell could be defleted to several mages
>and the LOS available to the spell would be contiously reduced.)

I don't believe it's written that way. Since a spell is described as the
casting mage synchronizing auras and funneling mana through the link, I've
always interpreted reflective shielding as the defending mage rechanneling
the energy backwards through the link at the casting magician.

To involve a third target would mean the deflecting magician synchonizing
with their aura. That, IMHO, would be a different metamagical ability.
However, once done I think it would work based on the deflecting mage's
LOS, and not the casting mage's. The deflecting mage would essentially
become a relay for the spell energy. I don't see this as becoming too
abusive, since the deflecting mage only passes on his net successes to the
receiving target, IIRC.

>3) If a mage casts an AoE spell centered on himself, does it effect
>anyone behind him/her? (IOW, does field of vision reduce LOS? [See 5)])

According to the rules in SR3, no. A mage must see all potential targets
in the AoE to affect them. This does not apply to Elemental Manipulations,
of course.

>4) Looney the psychotic/suicidal intiated mage casts an attack spell on
>himself but then uses reflective shielding to reflect the spell back on
>the attacker. What happens? (It seems fairly straight forward but it's
>interesting contemplating it.)

Probably the spell goes off at ground zero either way.

>5) Does a mage have to look at him/herself to cast a spell on
>him/herself? A mage obviously falls or can fall into his/her own LOS
>since s/he can cast spells on him/herself, but is this an automatic
>thing?

Since a mage is always in contact with his own aura, he can always cast a
spell upon himself. He doesn't have to "see" the aura, since he's
automatically synchronized with it.

>6) Could a Physical Manipulation spell be used to create a floating
>mirror (or mirrored surface)? and if so, can it be used to enhance LOS?
>(If not you can always levitate a mirror ...)

I don't see why not.

>--
>D. Ghost

Starjammer | Una salus victus nullam sperare salutem.
starjammer@**********.com | "The one hope of the doomed is not to hope
Marietta, GA | for safety." --Virgil, The Aeneid

From:	Lance Dillon <riffraff@********.RR.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:53:14 +0000

Message no. 11 Fixer wrote:
> obably a good thing.
>
> ->5) Does a mage have to look at him/herself to cast a spell on
> ->him/herself? A mage obviously falls or can fall into his/her own LOS
> ->since s/he can cast spells on him/herself, but is this an automatic
> ->thing?
>
> No(first part), because the mage would be enough in tune with
> his/her aura to not have to see his/herself. Yes to second part.
>

a bit late, but ive always sort of wondered about this...

how much of a person is required to see to count as seeing? ie, a mage
can see his own body, therefor he can cast the spell on himself....

if he only sees a guys arm from behind a bush or tree or something, can
he still target him?

--
Lance Dillon
Network Administrator
Nielsen Media Research
--
"Dogpile on the rabbit! Dogpile on the rabbit!"

From:	Steadfast <laughingman@*******.DE>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Fri, 9 Oct 1998 00:25:48 +0200

Message no. 12 And so it came to happen that Fixer wrote in reply to Mongoose:
----------
> ->:->6) Could a Physical Manipulation spell be used to create a floating
> ->:->mirror (or mirrored surface)? and if so, can it be used to enhance
> ->LOS?
> ->:->(If not you can always levitate a mirror ...)
> ->:
> ->: Yes, see my mirrored barrier above. I also utilize illusions
of
> ->:mirrors to the same effect... ]:-) Of course, in both cases, the
mirror
> ->:works both ways.....
> ->
> ->
> -> I'd have to question the "illusion of a mirror". Yes, you could
> ->create an illusion of a mirror. However, you would be controlling what
> ->was "reflected" in the mirror, so unless you already had LOS to the
area
> ->viewed in the mirror, the image would be a (convincing) lie, not valid
for
> ->LOS.
> -> If they create valid images of things the mage has no knowledge of,
> ->illusion spells could be used as (very powerful) detection spells;
"I'll
> ->just create an illusionary tridview of what is currently happening
inside
> ->Aztechnolgy's boardroom". NOT.
>
> "I make an illusion of a piece of highly reflective silver."
> Light doesn't know the difference. I suppose what could really solve
this
> question is: do illusion throw natural shadows? If they do, they must
> block light, and if they block light, they can bend light and if they can
> bend light, you can have an illusion of a mirror that performs the same
> functions of a mirror. Am I the only fellow that has used an illusion of
> a torch to light a room? Or the illusion of a really big gun to
> intimidate people?

No, you aren't, at least not with the secons illusion. But the first one is
something I do not get. An illusion spell just works like it says. It is an
illusion of something the caster makes real for everyone affected. So if he
would cast the Torch he has the illusion of a torch in his hand. But than
there is the problem, Reality doesn't know that there is light (although it
is illusionary) so it just is the same like a bright picture of a torch, 3d
that the caster is holding in his hand. So, does this picture radiate light
around itself just because it is a picture of a torch? I guess not. The
human brain now plays tricks on us, because we think "hey there is an
illusion of light, kewl! so there needs to be real light then, but, uh,
where isit?" Thats the point the good illusionist casts another illusion
around the first one, the illusion of the dungeon or wherever illuminated.
But this illusion lacks a certain and important point. Reality.
Which also answers the question wether or not illusionary objects cast a
shadow, they don't as for reality it is not there. Of course the good
illusionist takes that into account and sees to that (aka rolls lots of
sucesses).
All IMO of course and ready to be defended.
;o)
Hope it helps.

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

From:	Steadfast <laughingman@*******.DE>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Fri, 9 Oct 1998 00:30:15 +0200

Message no. 13 And so it came to happen that Lance Dillon wrote:
----------

> Fixer wrote:
> > obably a good thing.
> >
> > ->5) Does a mage have to look at him/herself to cast a spell on
> > ->him/herself? A mage obviously falls or can fall into his/her own LOS
> > ->since s/he can cast spells on him/herself, but is this an automatic
> > ->thing?
> >
> > No(first part), because the mage would be enough in tune with
> > his/her aura to not have to see his/herself. Yes to second part.
> >
>
> a bit late, but ive always sort of wondered about this...
>
> how much of a person is required to see to count as seeing? ie, a mage
> can see his own body, therefor he can cast the spell on himself....
>
> if he only sees a guys arm from behind a bush or tree or something, can
> he still target him?

Just use the normal targeting penalties as stated in SR3rd Page 112 RANGED
COMBAT MODIFIERS TABLE and Read the section under SR3rd, Page 181-182 SPELL
TARGETING.

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

From:	K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:16:09 EDT

Message no. 14 In a message dated 10/8/1998 10:07:14 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
cmaxfiel@****.ORG.AU writes:

> >2) Can Reflective Shielding be used to reflect an attack onto someone
> >other than the original caster? (perhaps Deflective Shileding could be a
> >new metamagical technique?)
>
> For Reflective Shielding, nope. It simply says that the spell is reflected
> back onto the caster. But if you want to invent new metamagical techniques,
> the sky's the limit.

And on that note, what does anyone think of reinventing Grounding as a
Metamagical Talent? We are considering doing it here once MitS comes out, as
removing Grounding, IMO at least, was just the wussies way out ;P

-K (who ducks for cover before Steve get's hold of something sharp and
dangerous ;)

From:	Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Thu, 8 Oct 1998 21:04:27 -0400

Message no. 15 At 08:16 PM 10-8-98 EDT, you wrote:
>
>And on that note, what does anyone think of reinventing Grounding as a
>Metamagical Talent? We are considering doing it here once MitS comes out, as
>removing Grounding, IMO at least, was just the wussies way out ;P
>
>-K (who ducks for cover before Steve get's hold of something sharp and
>dangerous ;)

Actually, I'd probably keep it as a standard ability. But then, that was
always the first thing that happened to a non-magician silly enough to walk
around with an active spell lock on 'em if I had anything to say about it. ;)

Down with the Lowest Common Denominator! Rules for those who can use them!
Viva la Grounding! :)

Starjammer | Una salus victus nullam sperare salutem.
starjammer@**********.com | "The one hope of the doomed is not to hope
Marietta, GA | for safety." --Virgil, The Aeneid

From:	"D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Thu, 8 Oct 1998 19:50:55 -0500

Message no. 16 On Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:25:29 +0200 Gurth <gurth@******.NL> writes:
>According to D. Ghost, at 7:53 on 8 Oct 98, the word on the street
>was...
<SNIP>
>> For example, a Periscope spell that refracts and magnifies light so
that
>> it behaves similar to the Clairvoyance spell BUT the target point must
>> be within the mages current LOS AND the spell does not allow you to
see
>> anything that is not within your LOS.

>That last requirement kinda completely negates the spell's usefulness,
>IMHO...
<SNIP>

Nope. It's still usefull (maybe not worth it...). You use it to get a
better look at things (It does include magnification.). Besides it'd be
kind of fun explaining to the Sam why can't see x item even though the
item is in full view of the end point of the periscope spell. :)

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"Long hair eliminates the need for barbers" -- Einstein

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

From:	"D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Thu, 8 Oct 1998 19:41:31 -0500

Message no. 17 On Thu, 8 Oct 1998 13:10:30 -0400 Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM> writes:
>At 07:53 AM 10/8/98 -0500, you wrote:
<SNIP>
>>5) Does a mage have to look at him/herself to cast a spell on
>>him/herself? A mage obviously falls or can fall into his/her own LOS
>>since s/he can cast spells on him/herself, but is this an automatic
>>thing?

>LOS strictly speaking isn't required for casting spell on oneself. You
can
>always synch auras or whatever your magical theory is, with yourself.
No
>LOS required.
<SNIP>

Even if you're have MPD?

Personality #1 knows healing spell but Personality #2 is predominant
control. Can Personality #1 cast the healing spell on them if
Personality #2 won't lokk down? And does each Personality have his/her
own Stun Damage track (doubtful)?

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"Long hair eliminates the need for barbers" -- Einstein

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

From:	"D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Thu, 8 Oct 1998 21:01:15 -0500

Message no. 18 On Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:16:09 EDT K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
writes:
<SNIP>
>And on that note, what does anyone think of reinventing Grounding as a
>Metamagical Talent? We are considering doing it here once MitS comes
out, as
>removing Grounding, IMO at least, was just the wussies way out ;P

I don't know. Grounding is a three-edged sword. :) I MIGHT keep it ...

>-K (who ducks for cover before Steve get's hold of something sharp and
>dangerous ;)

Why? He'll just ground a Thwap spell into you while you're not looking
sometime after 2011 and 2060. :)

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"Long hair eliminates the need for barbers" -- Einstein

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

From:	Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Thu, 8 Oct 1998 22:19:14 -0400

Message no. 19 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 07:41 PM 10/8/98 -0500, D.Ghost wrote:
>Personality #1 knows healing spell but Personality #2 is predominant
>control. Can Personality #1 cast the healing spell

Stop right there. How can Personality #1 cast a healing spell at all,
if Personality #2 is in control?
If I did allow a mage in SR to have MPD (which I don't), I would
certainly allow only the dominant active personality to be able to
cast a spell.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNh1ynKPbvUVI86rNAQHPWgQAtbN3Ba7v1FoSti6o8tIZ9OU13sVUYnGV
Kh5IIZUsi108jKWdDcKg4TmOLMHd2RW+trMzSxklUx8+QYW2OLmjbA6lkek+SECu
xA6aiWhcsQeWzpb4Eumtv8xRGNUdc1oQvXMXQ569TCKhELdA8i+HuXMzxr+6cJh0
VoumjjUe/7Q=
=mm2I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344

From:	Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Thu, 8 Oct 1998 18:30:04 -0700

Message no. 20 :-> I'd have to question the "illusion of a mirror". Yes, you could
:->create an illusion of a mirror. However, you would be controlling what
:->was "reflected" in the mirror, so unless you already had LOS to the
area
:->viewed in the mirror, the image would be a (convincing) lie, not valid
for
:->LOS.
:-> If they create valid images of things the mage has no knowledge of,
:->illusion spells could be used as (very powerful) detection spells;
"I'll
:->just create an illusionary tridview of what is currently happening
inside
:->Aztechnolgy's boardroom". NOT.
:
: "I make an illusion of a piece of highly reflective silver."
:Light doesn't know the difference. I suppose what could really solve
this
:question is: do illusion throw natural shadows? If they do, they must
:block light, and if they block light, they can bend light and if they can
:bend light, you can have an illusion of a mirror that performs the same
:functions of a mirror.

I'd say they do not throw shadows, unlerss those shadows are part of
the illusion. They could not fall outside thier are of effect (specific
exeptions asside- invusibilty would negate the shadow the target casts,
for example, so I supose you could turn an obstacle invisble and then cast
a spell on something behind it).
Perhaps a physical illusion would indeed have that effect on light; I
had been thinking of things like mana based illusions. I still wonder how
the creator of the illusion knows what image should apear in the mirror- I
think that is a basic limit of illusions, that they only show things the
caster can imigine. The spell aids that imgination, but should not grant
new knowledge as the bssis of that imgination.

:Am I the only fellow that has used an illusion of
:a torch to light a room? Or the illusion of a really big gun to
:intimidate people?

I don't think the illusionary torch WOULD light the room- it would
make you THINK the room was better lit, and you would see (false) details
iluminated by that "light". Even a physical illusion would still only
create "illusionary" light- which could be photographed, but would not
revale acurate images. There is a (rather difficult to use) manipulation
spell that creates actual light, if that is the effect you want. The
illusioanry torch would only cast (false) light in the illusions area of
effect, so basically, you are just creating an alternate view of that
scene- one that is less dim, but no more acurate.
Intimidating folks with a illusionary gun is no problem- they think
you have a gun. You just can't SHOOT them with the gun (or an illsionary
lazer, for that matter).

Mongoose

From:	Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Thu, 8 Oct 1998 18:35:02 -0700

Message no. 21 :> ->5) Does a mage have to look at him/herself to cast a spell on
:> ->him/herself? A mage obviously falls or can fall into his/her own LOS
:> ->since s/he can cast spells on him/herself, but is this an automatic
:> ->thing?
:>
:> No(first part), because the mage would be enough in tune with
:> his/her aura to not have to see his/herself. Yes to second part.
:>
:
:a bit late, but ive always sort of wondered about this...
:
:how much of a person is required to see to count as seeing? ie, a mage
:can see his own body, therefor he can cast the spell on himself....
:
:if he only sees a guys arm from behind a bush or tree or something, can
:he still target him?
:

yes, you just use the TN penalty for "cover"

mongoose

From:	"Ratinac, Rand (NSW)" <RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Fri, 9 Oct 1998 16:07:16 +1000

Message no. 22 > :a bit late, but ive always sort of wondered about this...
> :
> :how much of a person is required to see to count as seeing? ie, a
> mage
> :can see his own body, therefor he can cast the spell on himself....
> :
> :if he only sees a guys arm from behind a bush or tree or something,
> can
> :he still target him?
> :
>
> yes, you just use the TN penalty for "cover"
>
> mongoose
>
I have no idea who wrote the top part of this, but it brings to mind a
question of my own. Now, a mage must have LOS in order to 'synchronise
auras'. Okay. But what about touching? I've always thought that if
you're touching your target you can hit them with a spell (touch-based
or no), whether or not you can see them (say you've got your eyes closed
or blindfolded). I've just reasoned that if you can synchronise auras
just by looking, you can do it even better by touching them.

What do the rest of you think? Or has an official ruling been made on
this question?

*Doc' closes his eyes, touches a goon and suffers a cerebral haemorrhage
from the strain of trying to cast an 'Inflict Haemorrhoids' spell while
not looking.*

Doc'

.sig Sauer

From:	Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Fri, 9 Oct 1998 03:10:13 -0400

Message no. 23 At 04:07 PM 10-9-98 +1000, you wrote:

>I have no idea who wrote the top part of this, but it brings to mind a
>question of my own. Now, a mage must have LOS in order to 'synchronise
>auras'. Okay. But what about touching? I've always thought that if
>you're touching your target you can hit them with a spell (touch-based
>or no), whether or not you can see them (say you've got your eyes closed
>or blindfolded). I've just reasoned that if you can synchronise auras
>just by looking, you can do it even better by touching them.
>
>What do the rest of you think? Or has an official ruling been made on
>this question?
>
>Doc'

Well, for the spell-design section in the Grimoire, IIRC, it says that a
magician is always considered to be touching their own aura (of course), so
they can always cast a spell upon themselves. So I don't see how touching
another person's aura is different.

So yes, touch is sufficient whether your eyes are open or closes, IMO.

Starjammer | Una salus victus nullam sperare salutem.
starjammer@**********.com | "The one hope of the doomed is not to hope
Marietta, GA | for safety." --Virgil, The Aeneid

From:	Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:22:23 -0400

Message no. 24 On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, Lance Dillon wrote:

->Fixer wrote:
->> obably a good thing.
->>
->> ->5) Does a mage have to look at him/herself to cast a spell on
->> ->him/herself? A mage obviously falls or can fall into his/her own LOS
->> ->since s/he can cast spells on him/herself, but is this an automatic
->> ->thing?
->>
->> No(first part), because the mage would be enough in tune with
->> his/her aura to not have to see his/herself. Yes to second part.
->>
->
->a bit late, but ive always sort of wondered about this...
->
->how much of a person is required to see to count as seeing? ie, a mage
->can see his own body, therefor he can cast the spell on himself....
->
->if he only sees a guys arm from behind a bush or tree or something, can
->he still target him?

He can see the aura of the target, so yes, he can still target the
person if even a fraction of his body is seen.

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?

From:	Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:42:59 -0400

Message no. 25 On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Steadfast wrote:

<snip illusions & light>
->No, you aren't, at least not with the secons illusion. But the first one is
->something I do not get. An illusion spell just works like it says. It is an
->illusion of something the caster makes real for everyone affected. So if he
->would cast the Torch he has the illusion of a torch in his hand. But than
->there is the problem, Reality doesn't know that there is light (although it
->is illusionary) so it just is the same like a bright picture of a torch, 3d
->that the caster is holding in his hand. So, does this picture radiate light
->around itself just because it is a picture of a torch? I guess not. The
->human brain now plays tricks on us, because we think "hey there is an
->illusion of light, kewl! so there needs to be real light then, but, uh,
->where isit?" Thats the point the good illusionist casts another illusion
->around the first one, the illusion of the dungeon or wherever illuminated.
->But this illusion lacks a certain and important point. Reality.
->Which also answers the question wether or not illusionary objects cast a
->shadow, they don't as for reality it is not there. Of course the good
->illusionist takes that into account and sees to that (aka rolls lots of
->sucesses).
->All IMO of course and ready to be defended.
->;o)
->Hope it helps.

After a half-hour debate here at work with two co-workers and
TwOlf from #Shadowrun IRC, we came to the conclusion that illusions of
light-generating objects don't generate light. Why? Because they're not
a light-emitting source, they're simply a magical construct causing those
within the area of effect believe there is an object which sheds light in
their field of view. For a physical spell, this simply means that
non-living sources are receiving the signals, not that the magical
construct is physical. A physical illusion will not stop someone from
falling, although they will 'feel' it when they hit it. An illusion of a
mirror will only reflect what the illusionist (caster of the illusion)
wants them too. If the illusionist doesn't KNOW what is around the
corner, they cannot make an illusionary mirror at the edge of the corner
to look around the corner because the illusion will only show what the
illusionist wants it to show because the mirror is just sending an image
to everyone's mind (or to any sensory device is physical) that there is a
'mirror-like object with this reflection in it' but it's still not a true
mirror that will give you LOS. You can, however, use an illusion to BLOCK
line of sight as it still 'looks' solid.
A physical manipulation that created a reflective surface,
however, would give you line of sight as it's actually creating temporary
matter and not just feeding sensory input. This is provided you're using
it as a reflective surface, however... probably only a +1 to drain target
numbers for incidental effects and use standard Barrier spell rules.

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?

From:	Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Fri, 9 Oct 1998 08:05:53 -0400

Message no. 26 On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, D. Ghost wrote:

->On Thu, 8 Oct 1998 13:10:30 -0400 Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM> writes:
->>At 07:53 AM 10/8/98 -0500, you wrote:
-><SNIP>
->>>5) Does a mage have to look at him/herself to cast a spell on
->>>him/herself? A mage obviously falls or can fall into his/her own LOS
->>>since s/he can cast spells on him/herself, but is this an automatic
->>>thing?
->
->>LOS strictly speaking isn't required for casting spell on oneself. You
->can
->>always synch auras or whatever your magical theory is, with yourself.
->No
->>LOS required.
-><SNIP>
->
->Even if you're have MPD?
->
->Personality #1 knows healing spell but Personality #2 is predominant
->control. Can Personality #1 cast the healing spell on them if
->Personality #2 won't lokk down? And does each Personality have his/her
->own Stun Damage track (doubtful)?

<IMO> The aura for the individual will remain the same. Changes
in psychology won't represent a complete shift in aura, a fairly obvious
shift, yes, but not a complete shift. Plus, if I was GMing such an
individual, personality #1 wouldn't be able to do squat because #2 was in
control and couldn't channel the mana through the body (which does require
control).</IMO>

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?

From:	David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:30:41 -0600

Message no. 27 For the mere cost of a Thaum, K in the Shadows wrote:
/
/ And on that note, what does anyone think of reinventing Grounding as a
/ Metamagical Talent? We are considering doing it here once MitS comes out, as
/ removing Grounding, IMO at least, was just the wussies way out ;P

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

From:	Lehlan Decker <DeckerL@******.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Fri, 9 Oct 1998 10:36:05 -0400

Message no. 28 <SNIP>
/ And on that note, what does anyone think of reinventing
Grounding as a
/ Metamagical Talent? We are considering doing it here once
MitS comes out, as
/ removing Grounding, IMO at least, was just the wussies way out
>;P
That is scary, MC23 and I had a similiar conversation concerning
grounding last night. It's odd, we all argued over grounding, but
it seems to be something that alot of people miss in SR3.
I guess we just wanted it cleaned up, not removed.
As far as I'm concerned, if it doesn't appear in MITS, this would
be a pretty good house rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker, Unix Admin (704)331-1149
deckerl@******.com Fax 378-1939
Moore & Van Allen, PLLC Pager 1-888-608-9633

From:	Joshua Mumme <Grimlakin@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:42:06 -0500

Message no. 29 Steadfast wrote:
<SNIP other quoted stuff>

> No, you aren't, at least not with the secons illusion. But the first one is
> something I do not get. An illusion spell just works like it says. It is an
> illusion of something the caster makes real for everyone affected. So if he
> would cast the Torch he has the illusion of a torch in his hand. But than
> there is the problem, Reality doesn't know that there is light (although it
> is illusionary) so it just is the same like a bright picture of a torch, 3d
> that the caster is holding in his hand. So, does this picture radiate light
> around itself just because it is a picture of a torch? I guess not. The
> human brain now plays tricks on us, because we think "hey there is an
> illusion of light, kewl! so there needs to be real light then, but, uh,
> where isit?" Thats the point the good illusionist casts another illusion
> around the first one, the illusion of the dungeon or wherever illuminated.
> But this illusion lacks a certain and important point. Reality.
> Which also answers the question wether or not illusionary objects cast a
> shadow, they don't as for reality it is not there. Of course the good
> illusionist takes that into account and sees to that (aka rolls lots of
> sucesses).
> All IMO of course and ready to be defended.
> ;o)
> Hope it helps.
>
> --->Steadfast
> to be "human" is not a state of living
> I want to achieve.

Well they way I would handle it is great you have an illusion of a torch but
what do you see? I mean the illusion of a torch MIGHT show a wall directly in
front of you but it really could be a hallway with a simple illusion cast over
it. New ideas for runs. Long hallway lights all down it except for that odd
area with an off colored light maby it is just burning out. On either side of
this + intersection guards with many fully auto guns that know it is an
illusion and can see through it perfectly! :)

Grimlakin

From:	K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Sat, 10 Oct 1998 01:26:22 EDT

Message no. 30 In a message dated 10/9/1998 6:34:25 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US writes:

> After a half-hour debate here at work with two co-workers and
> TwOlf from #Shadowrun IRC, we came to the conclusion that illusions of
> light-generating objects don't generate light. Why? Because they're not
> a light-emitting source, they're simply a magical construct causing those
> within the area of effect believe there is an object which sheds light in
> their field of view. For a physical spell, this simply means that
> non-living sources are receiving the signals, not that the magical
> construct is physical. A physical illusion will not stop someone from
> falling, although they will 'feel' it when they hit it. An illusion of a
> mirror will only reflect what the illusionist (caster of the illusion)
> wants them too. If the illusionist doesn't KNOW what is around the
> corner, they cannot make an illusionary mirror at the edge of the corner
> to look around the corner because the illusion will only show what the
> illusionist wants it to show because the mirror is just sending an image
> to everyone's mind (or to any sensory device is physical) that there is a
> 'mirror-like object with this reflection in it' but it's still not a true
> mirror that will give you LOS. You can, however, use an illusion to BLOCK
> line of sight as it still 'looks' solid.
> A physical manipulation that created a reflective surface,
> however, would give you line of sight as it's actually creating temporary
> matter and not just feeding sensory input. This is provided you're using
> it as a reflective surface, however... probably only a +1 to drain target
> numbers for incidental effects and use standard Barrier spell rules.
>
Fixer, I didn't know which part of this to snip, so I kept it. Sorry.

Physical Illusions *do* cause illumination effects of various levels/stages.
Especially if you take "Flare" into effect. Also with the consideration that
Trid Entertainment and/or Trid Phantasm are recordable material that is then
relayed to who knows how many viewers well beyond the AoE or LOS of the
caster.

-K

From:	Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject:	Re: Magic Questions (Was: Spell Definitions)
Date:	Sat, 10 Oct 1998 12:40:41 -0400

Message no. 31 On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, K in the Shadows wrote:

<snip my long post>
->Fixer, I didn't know which part of this to snip, so I kept it. Sorry.

No worries, I got it.

->Physical Illusions *do* cause illumination effects of various levels/stages.
->Especially if you take "Flare" into effect. Also with the consideration
that
->Trid Entertainment and/or Trid Phantasm are recordable material that is then
->relayed to who knows how many viewers well beyond the AoE or LOS of the
->caster.

Flare? (looks in SR3, Grimoire I & II) Don't see it, must have
been in Awakenings. All I'm working from is what's in SR3, since magic
has changed a great deal I take no examples from previous editions.
Physical Illusions: Yes, they are recordable material, that
doesn't mean it has to be generating light. If you 'see' an illusion,
then leave the area or the illusion ends, you remember the illusion. If a
physical recording device 'senses' an illusion, it sends that information
as electrical impulses to the recording device, and those impulses are not
magical. It's a matter of sensing something, not 'creating' something.
Illusions deal purely with the senses, not with matter or 'real' energy,
that's manipulation. I'm not saying that's right in my definition of
illusion-style magic, because it's not what I think illusion magic SHOULD
be, but the spells in the SR3 are purely based on creating false sensory
input to natural or physical sensory devices.

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer