Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 01:25:19 EDT
In a message dated 5/12/98 11:59:32 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
wordman@*******.COM writes:

> Enchanter Adepts have never really been fleshed out in SR. The BBB says
> that a magical adept can use _one_ magical skill, but enchanting is not
> mentioned as a magical skill in the BBB. Enchanting is introduced in the
> Grimore II, and Enchanter Adepts are not mentioned.

True, but they are mentioned somewhere, I just can't remember where. It was
just part of a paragraph as I recall...

> I personally would give an Enchanter Adept full astral abilities, as
> otherwise they are significantly less powerful compared to other adepts.
> The other adepts are pretty much balanced against each other, but without
> astral abilities, Enchanter Adepts are not in the same league.

WOW!!! You were actually nicer than I was originally. I originally only had
them with Astral Perception, and that was it. Through special Quests/Ordeal
in Initiation, they could develop Astral Projection, but -that- is just me.

> Note also that astral abilities give Enchanter Adepts more reason to avoid
> cyberware. (With higher Essence, they can stay in astral space longer).
> Without astral abilities Enchanter Adepts (like Conjuring Adepts) have
> little reason to keep their Magic Rating high. Magic Rating is useful to an
> enchanter only in setting the target number for making Orichalcum. For this
> reason, GMs may want to create some sort of house rule, like "Enchanters
> can only create foci with rating less than or equal to their Magic Rating".
> (BTW, Conjuring Adepts only use Magic Rating for Banishing.)

Personally, the "Orichalcum" reason should be more than enough IMO.

> Having said that, though, none of the enchanting rules _require_ astral
> perception. Alchemy and artificing require the performer be magically
> active, but they never have to look into astral space to get the job done.

I have always had a problem with this part of things as they were originally
stated in the "who has perception" conversations/rulings. To craft the
energies of any foci or related objects (like Govi, Anchorings, etc...), it
would just seem so much smarter to have the perception abilities than not. So
much more required if you will.

> Another question to consider is what kind of foci Enchantier Adepts may
> use. This is pretty much by elimination. Can't use Fetish, Spell or Spirit
> foci. Can't place spell locks. This leaves weapon and power foci.

Veyr true, and you don't want the jokes I -ONE TIME- had about an Enchanting
Foci to help with such....

> Last adept question is can they initiate and what kind of metamagic can
> they use. Again, by elimination. No sorcery skill, so can't use Quickening
> or Dispelling. I can't think of any reason to disallow Shielding, except
> that both it and spell defense seem somewhat alien to concept of the
> character, so I wouldn't allow an enchanter to use either of them.
> Enchanters probably could use centering to offset penalties, but they can't
> spell cast and don't take drain, so other uses of centering are pointless
> for them. I'd say they could definately mask, provided you buy the idea
> that they have full astral access. Achoring is sort of a weird area, as on
> the one hand they cannot cast spells, but on the other it seems like
> Anchoring is what an enchanter should be good at. I would allow an
> enchanter to perform all of the non-spellcasting duties for an anchoring.

Okay, time for the nitty gritty ideas here....

Enchanters can perform any/all of the Anchorings/Quickenings of a
Physical/Object oriented nature IMO. In fact, that is the -ONLY- way they can
use spells at all, is through the development of Anchorings/Quickenings. I
liked to think of it as the next stage in enchantment development above
"Foci".

Masking, Shielding, Centering (Enhanced preferred if GM allows), and
Dispelling are all really nice. Anchoring/Quickening have special rules for
such as I mentioned previously.

Dispelling you may ask??? Here's a thought, an Enchanter who learned
Dispelling could temporarily "turn off" a Foci or "Enchanted Object"
with a
special test, making it resisted of course for game mechanics balance. They
could opt for the ruling idea of using Enchanting for this or perhaps this is
where "Sorcery" development really begins for enchanters in general. This
would of course be a temporary thing, either lasting only for a few hours or
for a few turns, depending on the GM at the time or a House ruling
development.

"Quests of Enchantment" could also be possible, with successes gaining
additional dice towards the successful completion of a given work,
etcetera...more if the GM allows for such.

Depending on the POV of the enchanter in question (Shamanic or Hermetic), s/he
could possibly gain help for either Totemic bonuses or Elemental "Aid Study"
(if an elemental could be aquired in some fashion).

Enchanters could also be useful in making Warding Materials, or perhaps settng
up Wards if so allowed (another use for Sorcery or a variation on the
enchanting skill yet again).

And that is just the beginning, I am not even sure what else I could put up.
Some of the stuff we've done is on Hacker House of course...

-K
Message no. 2
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 02:00:42 -0400
Once upon a time, Ereskanti wrote;

>Okay, time for the nitty gritty ideas here....
<snip>
>And that is just the beginning, I am not even sure what else I could put up.
>Some of the stuff we've done is on Hacker House of course...

Just the beginning? If such an adept were to exist (until I see
FASA's rules it's just rumor) then it would just enchant, period. They
wouldn't particularly make great PC's and you shouldn't have to go and
give them special powers so they can be players. That's life. It's just
like why Sasquatches aren't given PC stats, engaging in game activities
(Shadowruns and the like) go against their basic pacifistic nature.
Sasquatches aren't any more prone to go on a killing spree than deer are.
In other words not everything is a valid player option, not because of
game balance but because of practicality.
-K, your games tend to run High-end power game and your idea might
mesh there, but I think you'll find it overpowered for general use.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 3
From: Nexx <nexx@********.NET>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 01:12:03 -0500
----------
> From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
> Sasquatches aren't any more prone to go on a killing spree than deer
are.

I find that statement slightly ironic, given that late last semester, a
deer jumped through a window on campus, and wound up severely injuring a
couple people when it went nuts.
Message no. 4
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 02:30:28 -0400
Once upon a time, Nexx wrote;

>----------
>> From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
>> Sasquatches aren't any more prone to go on a killing spree than deer
>are.
>
> I find that statement slightly ironic, given that late last
>semester, a
>deer jumped through a window on campus, and wound up severely injuring a
>couple people when it went nuts.

Oh, like I said it never happened. B>P#
But that's a fight or flight reaction anyway. It really was more of me
saying that not all sentients would fall into a human mindset.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 5
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 08:26:03 EDT
In a message dated 5/13/98 1:09:00 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
mc23@**********.COM writes:

> Just the beginning? If such an adept were to exist (until I see
> FASA's rules it's just rumor) then it would just enchant, period. They
> wouldn't particularly make great PC's and you shouldn't have to go and
> give them special powers so they can be players. That's life. It's just
> like why Sasquatches aren't given PC stats, engaging in game activities
> (Shadowruns and the like) go against their basic pacifistic nature.
> Sasquatches aren't any more prone to go on a killing spree than deer are.
> In other words not everything is a valid player option, not because of
> game balance but because of practicality.

Practicality? Okay, I'll be nice this time. Exceptions are the Rule in all
accounts, and we all are aware of that fact.

> -K, your games tend to run High-end power game and your idea might
> mesh there, but I think you'll find it overpowered for general use.

Actually, what have I listed to this point about an "Enchanter Adept" that so
overpowering? Not a damn thing a full magician couldn't do anyway. That is
why I kept putting in the "what the GM will allow" commentary...

You know what a -good- enchanter is? He's the richest guy on the block,
that's who he is. He's the one guy who wouldn't have to work. He's the
"Bruce Wayne" type who wants to do something else with himself besides be a
cooped up fuddy duddy in a nice lifestyle that every major corporation and
government on earth wants to keep secure for their own purposes. He's the guy
with the skill that everyone wants to make -THEIRS-. He's the guy everyone
wants and hopes will create that "Potion of Youth" just for -THEM-. He's the
-Tangible- magician, the person who makes something that is -magical- and is
something that a -mundane- can put his/her physical hands upon. And in a
world where so much is becoming -Virtual- or -Metatypish-, it's the one bit of
-Reality- (being that which is touchable and perceivable to the collective all
instead of the selective few) that everyone has or wants in common.

Oh no, not rare, just special.

-K
Message no. 6
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 08:29:37 EDT
In a message dated 5/13/98 1:53:04 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
mc23@**********.COM writes:

> > I find that statement slightly ironic, given that late last
> >semester, a
> >deer jumped through a window on campus, and wound up severely injuring a
> >couple people when it went nuts.
>
> Oh, like I said it never happened. B>P#
> But that's a fight or flight reaction anyway. It really was more of me
> saying that not all sentients would fall into a human mindset.
>
As I said in another post, Exception is the Rule. -You- 13,3,W (figure it
out) fell into a particular mindset of beliefs and had a "moment of exception"
given back to as a "rule" for someone else.

That is what makes us who we are...

-K
Message no. 7
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 11:17:30 -0400
Once upon a time, Ereskanti wrote;

>Practicality? Okay, I'll be nice this time. Exceptions are the Rule in all
>accounts, and we all are aware of that fact.

And exceptions will be exploited. That's why I dislike them.
>
>> -K, your games tend to run High-end power game and your idea might
>> mesh there, but I think you'll find it overpowered for general use.
>
>Actually, what have I listed to this point about an "Enchanter Adept" that
so
>overpowering? Not a damn thing a full magician couldn't do anyway. That is
>why I kept putting in the "what the GM will allow" commentary...

Overpowering is in reference to what is normally within an Adepts
direct field. Having to compare an Adept to a Full Magician doesn't help
either. Adepts are only a facet of a full Magician, not a hodgepodge of
one. No other existing adepts gets bits and pieces of abilities outside
its direct aspect so why should an Enchanter? Is a straight forward
Enchanter "equal" with other adepts, no. Should it be, no again. And
Enchanter only enchants. If you want to run one, fine but you can do that
with a lower priority choice.
As far as them having Astral Perception, do they have to have it?
Honestly, I'm rusty on my enchanting rules. Is it helpful, yes but it is
for all Adepts so I can't see that as justifiable reason. If they can't
enchant with out it, then and only then would they have it.

>You know what a -good- enchanter is? He's the richest guy on the block,
>that's who he is. He's the one guy who wouldn't have to work. He's the
>"Bruce Wayne" type who wants to do something else with himself besides be a
>cooped up fuddy duddy in a nice lifestyle that every major corporation and
>government on earth wants to keep secure for their own purposes. He's the guy
>with the skill that everyone wants to make -THEIRS-. He's the guy everyone
>wants and hopes will create that "Potion of Youth" just for -THEM-. He's
the
>-Tangible- magician, the person who makes something that is -magical- and is
>something that a -mundane- can put his/her physical hands upon. And in a
>world where so much is becoming -Virtual- or -Metatypish-, it's the one
>bit of -Reality- (being that which is touchable and perceivable to the
>collective all instead of the selective few) that everyone has or wants in
>common.

I was referring to in a Player Character reason. I didn't need the
reason why they exist in Shadowrun by why they would run the shadows. I
see your reasons more of why they wouldn't. Garbage Collectors are needed
in Shadowrun as well but you don't see them as player characters.

Here's MC23's rules on Enchanter Adepts.
Enchanters can use the Enchanting Skill. That's it.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 8
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 11:21:31 -0400
Once upon a time, Ereskanti wrote;

>As I said in another post, Exception is the Rule. -You- 13,3,W (figure it
>out) fell into a particular mindset of beliefs and had a "moment of
>exception" given back to as a "rule" for someone else.

I caught the reversed name part right off but I fail to follow the other
refernce. Please don't be so cryptic when responding on something like
that, I don't know how to answer.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

"Boy, I'm in a bad mood today! Everyone had better steer clear of me! I
hate EVERYBODY! As far as I'm concerned, everyone on the planet can just
drop dead. People are scum.
.....
WELL-L-L? DOESN'T ANYONE WANT TO CHEER ME UP?!?"
-Calvin, Calvin and Hobbes
I am MC23
Message no. 9
From: Nexx <nexx@********.NET>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 11:22:03 -0500
----------
> From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>

> see your reasons more of why they wouldn't. Garbage Collectors are
needed
> in Shadowrun as well but you don't see them as player characters.

Are you making fun of Big Crunch, the Troll Mercenary who had a day job
as a Garbage Collector? Sure, the pay was lousy, but it gave him a reason
to be around buildings he normally wouldn't have one for, and he could
pick up some nice toys for the Rigger to play with (The rigger was just a
tad unbalanced, and liked to play with anything he could get his hands
on).

***************
Rev. Mark Hall, Bardagh
aka Pope Nexx Many-Scars, PML FAQ Cop
aka Ellegon
ICQ 8108180 AIM: Nexx3
Fliegende Kinderscheisse!
--------[Geek Code Block]-----------
GED/GSS d- s++:+ a-- C++ W w+ PS+.5 PE- Y+ t+
5+ X+ R*+.5 !tv+ b+.5 DI+ D- G e h !r-- !y+
-------[End Geek Code Block]-------
Message no. 10
From: Karl Low <kwil@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 10:41:39 -0600
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>


<snip>


> I was referring to in a Player Character reason. I didn't need the
>reason why they exist in Shadowrun by why they would run the shadows. I
>see your reasons more of why they wouldn't. Garbage Collectors are needed
>in Shadowrun as well but you don't see them as player characters.


You need more original players. : )
What better way to get into the swanky areas and be going through people's
garbage on your legwork?
Plus! It means you can drive a visibly heavily armored vehicle around and
nobody says boo.

Of course.. gives you major penalties on sneaking into anywhere with a
chem-sniffer.. you take the good with the bad..

Karl
Message no. 11
From: Alex van der Kleut <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 13:18:37 -0400
At 10:41 AM 5/13/98 -0600, Karl Low wrote:
>You need more original players. : )
>What better way to get into the swanky areas and be going through people's
>garbage on your legwork?
>Plus! It means you can drive a visibly heavily armored vehicle around and
>nobody says boo.
>
>Of course.. gives you major penalties on sneaking into anywhere with a
>chem-sniffer.. you take the good with the bad..

No, the best way to do it is to OWN the garbage company. Most of the time
you get the employees to do all of that stuff. Then every once ina a while
you can get into those swanky areas in a heavily armored vehicle and nobody
says anything.

And for getting other people and items into areas they're not supposed to
be, who looks into the back of a garbage truck?

Sommers
Message no. 12
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 13:37:38 -0400
Once upon a time, Nexx wrote;

> Are you making fun of Big Crunch, the Troll Mercenary who had a
>day job
>as a Garbage Collector? Sure, the pay was lousy, but it gave him a reason
>to be around buildings he normally wouldn't have one for, and he could
>pick up some nice toys for the Rigger to play with (The rigger was just a
>tad unbalanced, and liked to play with anything he could get his hands
>on).

Yes I'm making fun of the big smelly trog. B>]#
But more to my original point, Collecting Garbage (version 2.0 should be
out now B>]# ) wasn't all he did. He was a Merc first Garbage collect
second (mechanic wise of the character not gamelife).

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

"Boy, I'm in a bad mood today! Everyone had better steer clear of me! I
hate EVERYBODY! As far as I'm concerned, everyone on the planet can just
drop dead. People are scum.
.....
WELL-L-L? DOESN'T ANYONE WANT TO CHEER ME UP?!?"
-Calvin, Calvin and Hobbes
I am MC23
Message no. 13
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 17:51:23 EDT
In a message dated 5/13/98 10:24:13 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
mc23@**********.COM writes:

> I caught the reversed name part right off but I fail to follow the other
> refernce. Please don't be so cryptic when responding on something like
> that, I don't know how to answer.
>
Cryptic? ME? Now I am getting somewhere while having been everywhere and
standing just here. Let's just say I finally figured out the picture,
-maybe-, but nothing is definite.


As for the other reference, it was in regards to the two postings that were
OnT IIRC...

Cryptic ... MC23 is calling -ME?- cryptic :P

-K
Message no. 14
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 18:00:40 EDT
In a message dated 5/13/98 12:21:29 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU writes:

> And for getting other people and items into areas they're not supposed to
> be, who looks into the back of a garbage truck?
>
I remember doing that once actually a LONG time ago with Reflex (Binder's
younger days). It worked, but oh when the "dogs" were let loose, we had
problems... :P

-K
Message no. 15
From: Wafflemeisters <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 06:16:25 -0500
> Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting) (Ereskanti , Wed 7:26)
> He's the
> -Tangible- magician, the person who makes something that is -magical- and is
> something that a -mundane- can put his/her physical hands upon. And in a
> world where so much is becoming -Virtual- or -Metatypish-, it's the one bit of
> -Reality- (being that which is touchable and perceivable to the collective all
> instead of the selective few) that everyone has or wants in common.
>
> Oh no, not rare, just special.
>
> -K

HUH? Mundanes have about as much use for enchanters as fish for
bicycles. Most magical drek is just another sort of loot to them, and
not of much real use. "Sure, you SAY its magical, and so does fred the
mage- well, ok. I'll be over at the cyberclinic when you get my cut
from the fence."

-Mongoose
Message no. 16
From: Airwasp <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 19:11:55 EDT
In a message dated 5/14/98 10:47:14 AM !!!First Boot!!!,
evamarie@**********.net writes:

> HUH? Mundanes have about as much use for enchanters as fish for
> bicycles. Most magical drek is just another sort of loot to them, and
> not of much real use. "Sure, you SAY its magical, and so does fred the
> mage- well, ok. I'll be over at the cyberclinic when you get my cut
> from the fence."

Umm, there is something to say about enchantments, they do not suffer the
problems of SOTA and other things. Although they do have their own particular
things which do endanger them (like Dispelling).

Mike
Message no. 17
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 00:10:11 EDT
In a message dated 5/14/98 5:47:18 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
evamarie@**********.net writes:

> HUH? Mundanes have about as much use for enchanters as fish for
> bicycles. Most magical drek is just another sort of loot to them, and
> not of much real use. "Sure, you SAY its magical, and so does fred the
> mage- well, ok. I'll be over at the cyberclinic when you get my cut
> from the fence."
>
Why certainly, and when you want a magician and their's none around to really
help with the recovery, the "enchanted anchoring of healing" is the next
thing. Perhaps a really nice "Augment Recovery" idea has been thought up
(smirk).

AND, magical paraphenalia brings about the highest take on fiscal returns. It
makes both knowing who the enchanters are and having one around to recognize
the stuff, both valuable and requirable in the SR Universe's mixed system...

-K
Message no. 18
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 00:25:40 EDT
In a message dated 5/14/98 6:13:04 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
Airwasp@***.COM writes:

> Umm, there is something to say about enchantments, they do not suffer the
> problems of SOTA and other things. Although they do have their own
> particular
> things which do endanger them (like Dispelling).
>
How about FAB-3 (any variant form), Nimue Salamanders, Fovea, Mana-Spikes
(what, no one has thought of this one?), Corrupted Mana Zones (they -ARE-
magically active and thus will burn with the rest of us), the-occasionally-
zealous-mage-in-a-bad-mood-who-just-happens-to-see-the-groundable-target-and-
vents-his-frustrations....

-K
Message no. 19
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 14:31:58 +1000
Ereskanti writes:
>How about FAB-3 (any variant form), Nimue Salamanders, Fovea, Mana-Spikes
>(what, no one has thought of this one?), Corrupted Mana Zones (they -ARE-
>magically active and thus will burn with the rest of us), the-occasionally-
>zealous-mage-in-a-bad-mood-who-just-happens-to-see-the-groundable-target-an
d-
>vents-his-frustrations....


What do you mean, occasional? :)

<evil GM mode>
In one of my games, some years back, the players are cruising in an elevator
to a penthouse apartment. Little did they know that they'd triggered an
alarm earlier, so the astral oversight wandered by. "Oh," he thinks to
himself. "That mage down there has _4_ spell locks active!". Pow! Pow! Pow!
Pow! Four spells later, most of the party is unconscious (he wanted
prisoners), and the last two are feeling groggy. Then the door opens, and
they have to deal with the three guards in the penthouse...

(They got away through liberal uses of stim patches... but the PC mage of
the 4 spell locks fame lost a magic point from the patches his friends put
on him, and the sam ended up having to get his arm replaced, after an
incident with a monowhip. Umm, that's enough clues. 5 free Karma points to
whoever names the module.)
</evil GM mode>

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 20
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 11:42:02 +0100
Robert Watkins said on 14:31/15 May 98...

> (They got away through liberal uses of stim patches... but the PC mage of
> the 4 spell locks fame lost a magic point from the patches his friends put
> on him, and the sam ended up having to get his arm replaced, after an
> incident with a monowhip. Umm, that's enough clues. 5 free Karma points to
> whoever names the module.)
> </evil GM mode>

Queen Euphoria.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
Now it's my time.
-> 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/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 21
From: Wafflemeisters <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 05:26:37 -0500
>
> Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting) (Airwasp , Thu 18:11)

> > HUH? Mundanes have about as much use for enchanters as fish for
> > bicycles. Most magical drek is just another sort of loot to them, and
> > not of much real use. "Sure, you SAY its magical, and so does Fred the
> > mage- well, ok. I'll be over at the cyberclinic when you get my cut
> > from the fence."
>
> Umm, there is something to say about enchantments, they do not suffer the
> problems of SOTA and other things. Although they do have their own particular
> things which do endanger them (like Dispelling).
>
> Mike

Which makes them a good value holding investment for a mundane, maybe,
but still about as useful to him as a 2 handled spoon.
If its "loot", and I'm mundane, I'd still rather sell it before some
mage "buddy" of mine gets real attached to it, and decides it's more his
than mine.

-Mongoose X
Message no. 22
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 09:50:00 EDT
In a message dated 5/15/98 5:01:25 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
evamarie@**********.net writes:

> Which makes them (Enchanters) a good value holding investment for a
mundane, maybe,
>
> but still about as useful to him as a 2 handled spoon.
> If its "loot", and I'm mundane, I'd still rather sell it before
some
> mage "buddy" of mine gets real attached to it, and decides it's more his
> than mine.
>
> -Mongoose X

Okay, I think I see a pattern here. This is part of that "game view" thing.
In MOST games, an Enchanter Adept is incredibly limiting, so they HAVE to do
something else in order to compensate. Hell, when I first made Reflex/Binder,
he was a Decker/Enchanter, and since he didn't have astral perception as per
the rules, he wasn't effected when decking the same as a full magician.

But, in any case, Mongoose has his opinions of Enchanter flexibility, and
other people have theirs....

-K
Message no. 23
From: Airwasp <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 12:51:02 EDT
In a message dated 5/15/98 10:01:15 AM !!!First Boot!!!,
evamarie@**********.net writes:

> Which makes them a good value holding investment for a mundane, maybe,
> but still about as useful to him as a 2 handled spoon.
> If its "loot", and I'm mundane, I'd still rather sell it before
some
> mage "buddy" of mine gets real attached to it, and decides it's more his
> than mine.

Hey, enchantments can be used by mundanes, and here is the only example I can
remember ...

Hanna Uljanken (?!?) from Burning Bright had a Spell Locked (?) Increase
Attribute (Charisma) spell on herself.

So, the books do contradict themselves when saying a mundane can't use magic
items.

I also believe that a mundane could benefit from a Conjuring Foci, in that the
dice they would gain could be used to defend themselves against any and all
spirit attacks on them.

An enhanced Mindlink Spell (Grouplink), that is capable of being used by more
than one individual to communicate with each other is also possible. We have
used this sort of thing for years in the gaming group for the last, oh, 4+
years that I readily know of.

You could throw some form of magical encryption into the spell during the
design stage making it harder for someone to be able to understand the
information that is being transmitted via the Grouplink spell.

Just a few more things.

Then there is the crazy idea one of the guys in the game group has come up
with.

Using the Tool Laser cybereye option, though breadboarding it (getting the
kind used in laser welders and other industrial tools), he is going to be
making a Lightsaber (almost).

To do this he is going to have to redesign several things. First, the
"length" of the beam is going to be variable, having a 10 stage choke, with
the standard length of the blade being 1m.

He is going to be using a Body 0 drone for the purpose of power storage and
economy (these things do need energy to use). Though it is not going to be a
drone though.

He is going to be upping the damage code of the blade up from 4L to something
higher (right now he and I are guessing no higher than 8 or 9M).

And as for the power pack for the thing, here is where the magic comes into
play. The power pack of the saber is going to be removable from the saber,
coming out somewhat like a normal flashlight. He then slots the power pack
into a small case on his belt (or backpack, or wherever - and no, not where
the light never shines, because in this case, it does).

The Power Packs have the Suncell option attached to them.

The recharge unit has in itself, an anchoring which activates when the charge
level of the battery is not high enough, via something clicking physically on
the recharge unit. The spell activated (an enchantment) is a Light spell with
Elemental Light thrown in for fun. And this this would recharge the power
packs for the Lightsaber.

And this is something a mundane can use to boot.

The player in question is also wanting to start up an organization to help
protect the soon to be founded Ork Nation on Yomi. He is going to call it,
yeah this is corny, the Rangers.

More on this in another post.

Mike
Message no. 24
From: "Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman" <jeremy@***********.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 10:40:51 -0700
----------
> From: Airwasp <Airwasp@***.COM>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
> Date: Friday, May 15, 1998 9:51 AM
>
<snip>
> Hey, enchantments can be used by mundanes, and here is the only example I
can
> remember ...
>
> Hanna Uljanken (?!?) from Burning Bright had a Spell Locked (?) Increase
> Attribute (Charisma) spell on herself.
>
> So, the books do contradict themselves when saying a mundane can't use
magic
> items.
>

Well, you can do that in BBB. But the more realistic way of looking at it
is someone using a magic item on a mundane. She can't take it off, she
can't turn it on. In short, she has one big astral "kick me" sign on her
back.

But she's awfully charming.

Besides, isn't Burning bright a novel? I thought novels were allowed to
break the rules, since they aren't considered canon in terms of rules... or
am I thinking of a different game?

> I also believe that a mundane could benefit from a Conjuring Foci, in
that the
> dice they would gain could be used to defend themselves against any and
all
> spirit attacks on them.
>

But doesn't a mage have to be using it? I think the same would apply to a
spell focus. Sure, the mage can allocate X magic pool dice towards the
defense of his team mates, but you still have to have that mage.

>
> Using the Tool Laser cybereye option, though breadboarding it (getting
the
> kind used in laser welders and other industrial tools), he is going to be
> making a Lightsaber (almost).
>
> To do this he is going to have to redesign several things. First, the
> "length" of the beam is going to be variable, having a 10 stage choke,
with
> the standard length of the blade being 1m.
>

How do you choke a laser? Is this a magical effect?

> The recharge unit has in itself, an anchoring which activates when the
charge
> level of the battery is not high enough, via something clicking
physically on
> the recharge unit. The spell activated (an enchantment) is a Light spell
with
> Elemental Light thrown in for fun. And this this would recharge the
power
> packs for the Lightsaber.
>

Okay, this bit totally lost me... what is the point of the Light spell?
Message no. 25
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 13:33:11 -0400
Once upon a time, Airwasp wrote;

>Hey, enchantments can be used by mundanes, and here is the only example I can
>remember ...
>
>Hanna Uljanken (?!?) from Burning Bright had a Spell Locked (?) Increase
>Attribute (Charisma) spell on herself.

She benefitted from it but that wasn't her using it. It was the mage
that cast the spell and paid the Karma for it to work.

>So, the books do contradict themselves when saying a mundane can't use magic
>items.

No, they didn't in that example.

>I also believe that a mundane could benefit from a Conjuring Foci, in that the
>dice they would gain could be used to defend themselves against any and all
>spirit attacks on them.

They can't bond to it to get any effect.

>An enhanced Mindlink Spell (Grouplink), that is capable of being used by more
>than one individual to communicate with each other is also possible. We have
>used this sort of thing for years in the gaming group for the last, oh, 4+
>years that I readily know of.

Yet again it is the caster that is responsible for that one.

>You could throw some form of magical encryption into the spell during the
>design stage making it harder for someone to be able to understand the
>information that is being transmitted via the Grouplink spell.

That's still the spell and casters responsibility. And what does a
spell have to do with enchanted items.

>Just a few more things.
>
>Then there is the crazy idea one of the guys in the game group has come up
>with.

I don't even want to go into the parts of that idea where it falls
apart.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 26
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 14:42:43 -0400
At 10:40 AM 5/15/98 -0700, you wrote:

<snipped mundanes wearing spell locks>

>Well, you can do that in BBB. But the more realistic way of looking at it
>is someone using a magic item on a mundane. She can't take it off, she
>can't turn it on. In short, she has one big astral "kick me" sign on her
>back.

Yup. That terribly attractive/charming woman can't defend herself from
astral attacks. It's the sort of thing that could only work in a very safe
environment.

>Besides, isn't Burning bright a novel? I thought novels were allowed to
>break the rules, since they aren't considered canon in terms of rules... or
>am I thinking of a different game?

Well, yes and no. Novels are considered canon for their *events* as far as
I know, but you can't look at the game mechanics used in the novels as
canon. The authors seem to be given a certain amount of freedom for
dramatic purposes. Some, even the original Dark Lord on High, took some
liberty. A few don't. I didn't think, for example, that Steve K. broke
any rules and if he did, I didn't notice. Our friend Jak Koke on the other
hand created those draconian things, or I guess he imported them from ED.
To me, that's breaking the rules for dramatic purposes.

>> To do this he is going to have to redesign several things. First, the
>> "length" of the beam is going to be variable, having a 10 stage choke,
>with
>> the standard length of the blade being 1m.
>>
>How do you choke a laser? Is this a magical effect?

Would have to be. How would one essentially stop light in mid-air? That's
the biggest gripe (and really the only one) I have with Star Wars. I
really don't see how the light sabers could actually work. Anything that
could actually stop or alter the path of a beam of light would have all
sort of other effects on the surrounding world also (aside from mirrors and
walls, which should be obvious).

>Okay, this bit totally lost me... what is the point of the Light spell?

I thought it was to give light to the SunCell which is the power supply for
the light saber. It's an interesting concept. And it would actually work
as near as I can tell.

But as with any anchoring, it's going to eventually run out of magic. It
can't last forever. It could last longer than any known normal battery,
but it will run out eventually.

Plus, the Grimmy says that anchorings are something of astral magnets,
attracting all manner of astral beings, some of which aren't nice.

Interesting concept, and some parts of it work within the rules very well
even if they weren't the intended to work that way. But I don't see how
the light saber itself could work, which trashes the entire thing.

Erik J.


"Ladies & Gentleman, the newest member of the band, the one and only Spice
Boy, GRUMPY SPICE!!!" <and the crowd goes wild!!!>
Message no. 27
From: "Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman" <jeremy@***********.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 13:09:40 -0700
----------
> From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
> Date: Friday, May 15, 1998 11:42 AM
>
> At 10:40 AM 5/15/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
<snip>
> >Besides, isn't Burning bright a novel? I thought novels were allowed to
> >break the rules, since they aren't considered canon in terms of rules...
or
> >am I thinking of a different game?
>
> Well, yes and no. Novels are considered canon for their *events* as far
as
> I know, but you can't look at the game mechanics used in the novels as
> canon. The authors seem to be given a certain amount of freedom for

That's what I meant.

> dramatic purposes. Some, even the original Dark Lord on High, took some
> liberty. A few don't. I didn't think, for example, that Steve K. broke
> any rules and if he did, I didn't notice. Our friend Jak Koke on the
other
> hand created those draconian things, or I guess he imported them from ED.
> To me, that's breaking the rules for dramatic purposes.
>

You mean the drakes? Would you really consider that rule breaking? Or is
that just introducing unknown critters?

> Would have to be. How would one essentially stop light in mid-air?
That's
> the biggest gripe (and really the only one) I have with Star Wars. I
> really don't see how the light sabers could actually work. Anything that
> could actually stop or alter the path of a beam of light would have all
> sort of other effects on the surrounding world also (aside from mirrors
and
> walls, which should be obvious).
>

One explanation I've heard is they aren't light, but I think it consists of
a lot of pseudo science.

> >Okay, this bit totally lost me... what is the point of the Light spell?
>
> I thought it was to give light to the SunCell which is the power supply
for
> the light saber. It's an interesting concept. And it would actually
work
> as near as I can tell.
>

Ah... just did not make any connection on that.

> Plus, the Grimmy says that anchorings are something of astral magnets,
> attracting all manner of astral beings, some of which aren't nice.
>

What's that acronym? EGMG!
Message no. 28
From: Craig J Wilhelm Jr <craigjwjr@******.ORG>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 19:40:07 -0400
Jeremy "Bolthy" Zimmerman wrote:
> What's that acronym? EGMG!

Evil GM Grin. >:] hehe!
--
Craig "Knee Deep in the Blood of Swine" Wilhelm
Afterlife Incorperated,
Quality Carnage at Affordable Prices.
UIN: 1864690
-------------BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
v3.12
GAT/$ d- s+:+ a- C+++ U--- P+ L- E-- W++ N++
o K- w+ O> !M-- !V PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t--- 5+++
X-- R++ tv b++ DI-- D+(Q2++) G++ e++ h* r y++**
--------------END GEEK CODE BLOCK--------------
Message no. 29
From: Craig J Wilhelm Jr <craigjwjr@******.ORG>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 20:04:32 -0400
Airwasp wrote:
> Hey, enchantments can be used by mundanes, and here is the only example I can
> remember ...

The only magic item type thing a mundane can *use* is an anchored spell
in an object. But even then that requires a willpower test (4).

> Hanna Uljanken (?!?) from Burning Bright had a Spell Locked (?) Increase
> Attribute (Charisma) spell on herself.

She aint *useing* it, some mage spent a point of karma to lock it onto
her. She can't turn it on and off like a magician can and she makes a
nice fat juicy target for a power ball from astral space.

> So, the books do contradict themselves when saying a mundane can't use magic
> items.

No they don't, seems pretty clear to me...

> I also believe that a mundane could benefit from a Conjuring Foci, in that the
> dice they would gain could be used to defend themselves against any and all
> spirit attacks on them.

Where are you getting this from? Mundanes can't bond stuff.

> An enhanced Mindlink Spell (Grouplink), that is capable of being used by more
> than one individual to communicate with each other is also possible. We have
> used this sort of thing for years in the gaming group for the last, oh, 4+
> years that I readily know of.

Yeah so? A mundane can wear clothes changed by the Fashion spell too...

> You could throw some form of magical encryption into the spell during the
> design stage making it harder for someone to be able to understand the
> information that is being transmitted via the Grouplink spell.

First of all, how would someone tap into it? Only way I can think of is
to use a mind probe. And even then you'd have to make up a new spell to
*encrypt* their memory (which actually a pretty darn cool idea!).

> Just a few more things.
>
> Then there is the crazy idea one of the guys in the game group has come up
> with.
>
> Using the Tool Laser cybereye option, though breadboarding it (getting the
> kind used in laser welders and other industrial tools), he is going to be
> making a Lightsaber (almost).
>
> To do this he is going to have to redesign several things. First, the
> "length" of the beam is going to be variable, having a 10 stage choke, with
> the standard length of the blade being 1m.

First thing he's gonna have to redesign is physics... The best way that
I have been able to come up with for a feasable Light Sabre is
magneticly bottled plasma. Basicly like a fusion reactors plasma is
contained in a "magnetic bottle", which is simply interlocking magnetic
fields, but that doesn't stop the heat from escaping the bottle and
frying the wielder, which is where magic could come in.

[snip sunell thing]
> And this this would recharge the power
> packs for the Lightsaber.

Not very quickly I would imagine. You have any idea what kind of
amperage you need to power a decent cutting laser?


--
Craig "Knee Deep in the Blood of Swine" Wilhelm
Afterlife Incorperated,
Quality Carnage at Affordable Prices.
UIN: 1864690
-------------BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
v3.12
GAT/$ d- s+:+ a- C+++ U--- P+ L- E-- W++ N++
o K- w+ O> !M-- !V PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t--- 5+++
X-- R++ tv b++ DI-- D+(Q2++) G++ e++ h* r y++**
--------------END GEEK CODE BLOCK--------------
Message no. 30
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 01:46:12 EDT
In a message dated 5/15/98 1:24:42 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
mc23@**********.COM writes:

> That's still the spell and casters responsibility. And what does a
> spell have to do with enchanted items.
>
Because in SR, "spells" are the basis of "Anchorings/Quickenings/Spell
Locks",
which are "magical items."

You know, the more and more I keep reading these responses lately, the more
and more I really begin to think everyone doesn't relate to anyone else.

-k
Message no. 31
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 01:49:03 EDT
In a message dated 5/15/98 1:49:35 PM US Eastern Standard Time, erikj@****.COM
writes:

> Interesting concept, and some parts of it work within the rules very well
> even if they weren't the intended to work that way. But I don't see how
> the light saber itself could work, which trashes the entire thing.
>
The lightsabre worked incredibly well, you just didn't do "Lightsabre things
with it", like deflect bullets and what not... This was a "Laser Sword".

and no, this is NOT my thing here. In fact, Mike would even notice that I am
the ONE player to keep out of from the technological POV. Mageblade is mine,
has been for years now, and I'm just happy with that.

-K
Message no. 32
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 02:02:07 EDT
In a message dated 5/15/98 7:01:57 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
craigjwjr@******.ORG writes:

> > Hanna Uljanken (?!?) from Burning Bright had a Spell Locked (?) Increase
> > Attribute (Charisma) spell on herself.
>
> She aint *useing* it, some mage spent a point of karma to lock it
> onto
> her. She can't turn it on and off like a magician can and she makes a
> nice fat juicy target for a power ball from astral space.
>
Um, er guys, I think there is something that is being missed on this one
little point. Ms. Uljankmychain (sp??? who cares ;), had an Improve Charisma
anchoring, which is mana, NOT physical. No grounding of physical spells down
through the line. sorry, have a nice day.

-K
Message no. 33
From: Craig J Wilhelm Jr <craigjwjr@******.ORG>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 04:16:41 -0400
Ereskanti wrote:
> > She aint *useing* it, some mage spent a point of karma to lock it
> > onto
> > her. She can't turn it on and off like a magician can and she makes a
> > nice fat juicy target for a power ball from astral space.
> >
> Um, er guys, I think there is something that is being missed on this one
> little point. Ms. Uljankmychain (sp??? who cares ;), had an Improve Charisma
> anchoring, which is mana, NOT physical. No grounding of physical spells down
> through the line. sorry, have a nice day.

You're confused. You can *only* cast physical spells through a focus.
It don't matter what type of spell happens to be sustained by a spell
lock (which is considered a rating 1 focus for grounding purposes).
--
Craig "Knee Deep in the Blood of Swine" Wilhelm
Afterlife Incorperated,
Quality Carnage at Affordable Prices.
UIN: 1864690
-------------BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
v3.12
GAT/$ d- s+:+ a- C+++ U--- P+ L- E-- W++ N++
o K- w+ O> !M-- !V PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t--- 5+++
X-- R++ tv b++ DI-- D+(Q2++) G++ e++ h* r y++**
--------------END GEEK CODE BLOCK--------------
Message no. 34
From: Airwasp <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 10:35:34 EDT
Forgive me everyone, my mailer has gone on vacation again ... so, all of my
responses are the ones between the parenthesis (.... )

Mike

> Hey, enchantments can be used by mundanes, and here is the only example I
can
> remember ...
>
> Hanna Uljanken (?!?) from Burning Bright had a Spell Locked (?) Increase
> Attribute (Charisma) spell on herself.
>
> So, the books do contradict themselves when saying a mundane can't use
magic
> items.
>

Well, you can do that in BBB. But the more realistic way of looking at it
is someone using a magic item on a mundane. She can't take it off, she
can't turn it on. In short, she has one big astral "kick me" sign on her
back.

(True, but she is using one, does that constitute use ?)

But she's awfully charming.

(Yup.)

Besides, isn't Burning bright a novel? I thought novels were allowed to
break the rules, since they aren't considered canon in terms of rules... or
am I thinking of a different game?

(If it was allowed by FASA then book is to be considered as canon.)

> I also believe that a mundane could benefit from a Conjuring Foci, in
that the
> dice they would gain could be used to defend themselves against any and
all
> spirit attacks on them.
>

But doesn't a mage have to be using it? I think the same would apply to a
spell focus. Sure, the mage can allocate X magic pool dice towards the
defense of his team mates, but you still have to have that mage.

(The Spirit Foci would be part of the person's aura and the extra dice would
be available to help defend themselves from spirit powers and the like. The
one thing about this foci is that it can not be turned off.)

> Using the Tool Laser cybereye option, though breadboarding it (getting
the
> kind used in laser welders and other industrial tools), he is going to be
> making a Lightsaber (almost).
>
> To do this he is going to have to redesign several things. First, the
> "length" of the beam is going to be variable, having a 10 stage choke,
with
> the standard length of the blade being 1m.
>

How do you choke a laser? Is this a magical effect?

(Nope, through changing the focal length of the laser, and the range of
effectiveness of the beam. Beyond the range for the damage, the thing is
basically an overcharged flashlight.)

> The recharge unit has in itself, an anchoring which activates when the
charge
> level of the battery is not high enough, via something clicking
physically on
> the recharge unit. The spell activated (an enchantment) is a Light spell
with
> Elemental Light thrown in for fun. And this this would recharge the
power
> packs for the Lightsaber.
>

Okay, this bit totally lost me... what is the point of the Light spell?

(Okay, I missed something in that paragraph - mea culpa - Suncell Power)

(The Light spell shines onto the Suncell, and the Suncell converts the light
into electricity to recharge the power packs.)

Mike
Message no. 35
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 10:42:12 EDT
In a message dated 5/16/98 3:14:04 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
craigjwjr@******.ORG writes:

> You're confused. You can *only* cast physical spells through a focus.
> It don't matter what type of spell happens to be sustained by a spell
> lock (which is considered a rating 1 focus for grounding purposes).
> --
Really Craig, where does the limit of Physical Only through a Focus exist?

Gurth, oh great Wise and Mystically Knowledgable Guru that your reputation
claims you...please help out...I know I don't have all of these rules
memorized simply because spell locks were proven so dangerous so long ago here
that NO ONE will use them anymore.

-K
Message no. 36
From: Wafflemeisters <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 14:39:30 -0500
> Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting) (Ereskanti , Fri 8:50)

> > HUH? Mundanes have about as much use for enchanters as fish for
> > bicycles. Most magical drek is just another sort of loot to them, and
> > not of much real use. "Sure, you SAY its magical, and so does fred the
> > mage- well, ok. I'll be over at the cyberclinic when you get my cut
> > from the fence."
> >
> Why certainly, and when you want a magician and their's none around to really
> help with the recovery, the "enchanted anchoring of healing" is the next
> thing. Perhaps a really nice "Augment Recovery" idea has been thought up
> (smirk).
>
> AND, magical paraphenalia brings about the highest take on fiscal returns. It
> makes both knowing who the enchanters are and having one around to recognize
> the stuff, both valuable and requirable in the SR Universe's mixed system...
>

I believe my above messgae acknowledges that fact. Fencing magical
loot is not a role unique to enchanters, though they may do it very
well. As for PRODUCING valuble goods, a decker with a room full of
chip-burners can do that rather well, as can a sim-star, or even a
motivated drug synthesist and dealer. All these goods, the mundane is
more suited to deal in.
Different worlds, that all.

<message merge>
>
> Okay, I think I see a pattern here. This is part of that "game view"
thing.
> In MOST games, an Enchanter Adept is incredibly limiting, so they HAVE to do
> something else in order to compensate. Hell, when I first made Reflex/Binder,
> he was a Decker/Enchanter, and since he didn't have astral perception as per
> the rules, he wasn't effected when decking the same as a full magician.
>
> But, in any case, Mongoose has his opinions of Enchanter flexibility, and
> other people have theirs....
>
> -K

Perhaps you got me wrong- I was NOT comenting on an enchanter's
flexibilty, or even the value of thier contibution to a running team-
only on the value of his main products to mundanes, as your original
post claimed he made goods EVERYBODY wanted. SDorry if you got the
wrong inmpression- Ithink enchanters can be quite keen, personaly. It's
just, people without money don't care much about stock brokers; it
doesn't mean the broker ain't rich...
As for enhanted healing anchors, the enchantor might make the anchor,
but can't use spells, so I don't see it. Anchors made by an enchantor
might be very nice anchors for a spellcaster, though...
"Magical healing", as the -2 mod on the Doctring Table, may be
possible- just waht that requires / consists of is never said ; we
require the twice a day use of astral perception to "monitor" the
patient.
And yes, unless granted to all other magical adepts, I do not think
enchanters should get astral projection or perception. Thier "job" does
not ever require it- they can even use enchanting to analyze magical
goods. They may be "underpowered, but so are physical adepts, and I
don't often see people advocating THEY should have astral perception or
projection.
And, as you noted, enchanters DO tend to be wealthy.... :)

-X
Message no. 37
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 16:21:38 -0400
Once upon a time, Ereskanti wrote;

>In a message dated 5/15/98 1:24:42 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
>mc23@**********.COM writes:
>
>> That's still the spell and casters responsibility. And what does a
>> spell have to do with enchanted items.
>>
>Because in SR, "spells" are the basis of "Anchorings/Quickenings/Spell
>Locks", which are "magical items."

Anchorings and Quickenings are not items in any sense. They are the
product of Sorcery not Enchanting. Spell Lock's worth only becomes
apparent when a spell is locked by them. Basicly put, a Spell Lock is
still not a stand alone "magic item." A lot of people still seem to be
under the misinterpretation of how that works.

>You know, the more and more I keep reading these responses lately, the more
>and more I really begin to think everyone doesn't relate to anyone else.

That's a pretty open ended statement to leave lying around like that.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 38
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 22:47:49 +0100
Ereskanti said on 10:42/16 May 98...

> > You're confused. You can *only* cast physical spells through a focus.
> > It don't matter what type of spell happens to be sustained by a spell
> > lock (which is considered a rating 1 focus for grounding purposes).
> > --
> Really Craig, where does the limit of Physical Only through a Focus exist?
>
> Gurth, oh great Wise and Mystically Knowledgable Guru that your
> reputation claims you...please help out...I know I don't have all of
> these rules memorized simply because spell locks were proven so
> dangerous so long ago here that NO ONE will use them anymore.

Any spell can be cast at a focus, however only physical spells will ground
out to an area-effect (if they are area-effect spells, of course). All
other spells only affect the focus (or whatever else the dual-natured
target is), if and when they manage to ground through.

This is in SRII on page 149: "A mana spell thrown at a target with such a
dual profile, physical and astral, will only affect that target, even if
it is an area-effect spell. [bit snipped] A physical spell thrown by an
astral caster at a dual-natured target /will ground out through the
target's physical component/."

A few examples:

* Mana Bolt cast at an active focus will damage the focus, but nothing
else.

* Mana Bolt cast at a dual-natured critter will damage the critter.

* Manaball cast at an active focus will damage the focus, but nothing
else.

* Manaball cast at a dual-natured critter will damage the critter, but
nobody who happens to be nearby.

* Power Bolt cast at an active focus will damage the focus and the focus'
user.

* Power Bolt cast at a dual-natured critter will damage the critter.

* Powerball cast at an active focus will damage the focus, the focus'
user, and anyone in the area of effect.

* Powerball cast at a dual-natured critter will damage the critter and
anyone in the area of effect.

Note that this only applies to non-manipulation spells. Manipulation
spells can't be ground through dual-natured targets because they travel to
the target through the physical plane as well as the astral one.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
Now it's my time.
-> 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/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 39
From: Craig J Wilhelm Jr <craigjwjr@******.ORG>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 18:05:18 -0400
Ereskanti wrote:
> Really Craig, where does the limit of Physical Only through a Focus exist?

Shite! I just looked up the reference. I'm wrong again. It's
manipulation that can't be ground through foci. I keep getting physical
mixed up with manipulation for some reason.
Sorry, my bad...:(
--
Craig "Knee Deep in the Blood of Swine" Wilhelm
Inside every living human being, there's a dead one waiting to come out.
UIN: 1864690
-------------BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
v3.12
GAT/$ d- s+:+ a- C+++ U--- P+ L- E-- W++ N++
o K- w+ O> !M-- !V PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t--- 5+++
X-- R++ tv b++ DI-- D+(Q2++) G++ e++ h* r y++**
--------------END GEEK CODE BLOCK--------------
Message no. 40
From: Airwasp <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 18:24:31 EDT
In a message dated 5/16/98 10:02:20 PM !!!First Boot!!!, craigjwjr@******.ORG
writes:

> > Really Craig, where does the limit of Physical Only through a Focus exist?
>
> Shite! I just looked up the reference. I'm wrong again. It's
> manipulation that can't be ground through foci. I keep getting physical
> mixed up with manipulation for some reason.
> Sorry, my bad...:(

Don't worry, a lot of the players around here keep forgetting that (other than
Keith and I), so, perhaps this should work ......

Just stand still for a second ....

Don't move ...


XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Manipulation spells can
X
X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX not ground through into the physical
X
XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

A thwaping noise on Craig's forehead ...

There that shoud solve the problem, now all you have to do is look in a mirror
to notice ...

:)

-Mike
Message no. 41
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 22:39:22 EDT
In a message dated 5/16/98 3:24:11 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
mc23@**********.COM writes:

> >Because in SR, "spells" are the basis of
"Anchorings/Quickenings/Spell
> >Locks", which are "magical items."
>
> Anchorings and Quickenings are not items in any sense. They are the
> product of Sorcery not Enchanting. Spell Lock's worth only becomes
> apparent when a spell is locked by them. Basicly put, a Spell Lock is
> still not a stand alone "magic item." A lot of people still seem to be
> under the misinterpretation of how that works.

No, there are just a TON of House Rules flying around that are still being
sorted through. For example, as time has passed, Binder has developed the
ability to "Anchor" and "Quicken" spells, as long as they are treated
in a
particular manner. Basically, his -only- spells he would cast -HAD- to be
Anchorings/Quickenings (he personally hates Spell Locks). It was a way to
further develop the character and show a growing understanding of
"enchantments".

> >You know, the more and more I keep reading these responses lately, the
more
> >and more I really begin to think everyone doesn't relate to anyone else.
>
> That's a pretty open ended statement to leave lying around like that.

Really? And just how did -you- pick up on it then??? ;/
-K
Message no. 42
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 22:47:11 EDT
In a message dated 5/16/98 5:25:39 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
Airwasp@***.COM writes:

> Don't move ...
>
>
> XX
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Manipulation spells
> can X
> X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX not ground through into the
> physical X
> XX
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>
> A thwaping noise on Craig's forehead ...
>
JUST so everyone knows, Mike informed me how to make that image of his work.
Enlarge you email screen to it's maximum size. It's supposed to be a
"Baseball Bat"...

-K (who is -REALLY- worried about tomorrow if Mike is like this NOW ;p )
Message no. 43
From: Wafflemeisters <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 02:33:06 -0500
> Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting) (Ereskanti , 1:02)

> Um, er guys, I think there is something that is being missed on this one
> little point. Ms. Uljankmychain (sp??? who cares ;), had an Improve Charisma
> anchoring, which is mana, NOT physical. No grounding of physical spells down
> through the line. sorry, have a nice day.
>
> -K

Actually, all the grimore says is that Anchored spells can be ATACKED
from astral space, and that disrupting one part may have the consequence
of triggering certain anchored spells. It does say they are "bridges",
but it never explicitely states that you can ground through them,
regardles of WHAT spells(s) and links are present. Its questionable if
you could even cast a spell in astral space at an anchor, unless the
enchanting or use as an anchor makes the physical object dual natured.
Anybody care to touch that with a ten foot pole? I sure ain't.

-X
Message no. 44
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 13:39:46 +0100
And verily, did Ereskanti hastily scribble thusly...
|JUST so everyone knows, Mike informed me how to make that image of his work.
|Enlarge you email screen to it's maximum size. It's supposed to be a
|"Baseball Bat"...


##### # # # # ## #####
# # # # # # # # #
# ###### # # # # # #
# # # # ## # ###### #####
# # # ## ## # # #
# # # # # # # #

Some of use ELM, REMEMBER!

:)

How do you "Enlarge your viewing screen in ELM? It's a fixed 80x24 screen.

*sigh*
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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. 45
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting)
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 09:58:20 EDT
In a message dated 5/18/98 7:43:13 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK writes:

> |Enlarge you email screen to it's maximum size. It's supposed to be a
> |"Baseball Bat"...
>
>
> ##### # # # # ## #####
> # # # # # # # # #
> # ###### # # # # # #
> # # # # ## # ###### #####
> # # # ## ## # # #
> # # # # # # # #
>
> Some of use ELM, REMEMBER!
> :)
> How do you "Enlarge your viewing screen in ELM? It's a fixed 80x24 screen.
> *sigh*

Hey now, watch those things, I'm -just- the clarifier here, not even a
delivery guy as it were. To quote the author of said bat, "tell 'em it's Mike
being Mike"...somehow I keep wondering if -this Mike- and Editor Mike are
spirit linked somehow...they keep doing things their own way so often... ;P

-K

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting), 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!