Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Wyrmy <elfman@******.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 16:14:55 -0500
I think since most people are going away to GC(where is it held anyway?)
, that we should spend our time doing something constructive, rather
than mope about. How about we all come up with new spells(I'm making a
collection of spells, and need all the new spells I can get).I'll start
it off.

Raid bolt:
When cast, it launches a bolt of concentrated insecticde at target.if it
hits a bug, the bug takes extra damage.
Type:Physical range:LOS
Target:4 Damage:L(S)
Duration: instant Drain: [(F/2)+3]S


--
-W
============================
If you are a dreamer come in,
If you are a dreeamer, a wisher,
A liar, a magic jelly bean buyer,
Come In!
-What should be the motto of all internet users.
Message no. 2
From: Daryl Williams <enwill@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 15:51:57 -0700
---Wyrmy <elfman@******.COM> wrote:
>
> I think since most people are going away to GC(where is it held
anyway?)
> , that we should spend our time doing something constructive, rather
> than mope about. How about we all come up with new spells(I'm making a
> collection of spells, and need all the new spells I can get).I'll
start
> it off.
>
> Raid bolt:
> When cast, it launches a bolt of concentrated insecticde at
target.if it
> hits a bug, the bug takes extra damage.
> Type:Physical range:LOS
> Target:4 Damage:L(S)
> Duration: instant Drain: [(F/2)+3]S

Yeah, for us that don't have the means or the money to make it to
GC this year.. We have to have something to do so...

Raid Fogger:
A larger more effective version of Raid Bolt, it covers an area of
2meter/force pt of the spell,with a highly concentrated insecticide
that does extra damage bugs.
Type: Physical Range:2meters/force pt
Target:4 Damage: L(D)
Duration: 1rnd/Succ Drain: [F+2]D

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 3
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 20:17:04 EDT
In a message dated 8/4/98 4:10:33 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
elfman@******.COM writes:

> I think since most people are going away to GC(where is it held anyway?)
> , that we should spend our time doing something constructive, rather
> than mope about. How about we all come up with new spells(I'm making a
> collection of spells, and need all the new spells I can get).I'll start
> it off.
>
> Raid bolt:
> When cast, it launches a bolt of concentrated insecticde at target.if it
> hits a bug, the bug takes extra damage.

From the sounds of it this is a Manip spell ...

> Type:Physical range:LOS
> Target:4 Damage:L(S)
> Duration: instant Drain: [(F/2)+3]S

I have perhaps another question on this topic ... though not dealing with a
spell in general ...

There are critters and people out there who have vulnerabilites and allergies
against certain things ...

Mages can use power foci to assist them with drain and dice for casting the
spell at them ...

What could happen if the mage casts a spell and has a Power / Spell Foci that
is the same as the target's vulnerability / allergy ... like a mage tossing a
Spirit Bolt at a Invae who happens to have a foci that has been made with
insecticide in it ... the insecticide is a natural substance, not something
mass-produced, and is radicalized by the mage in question ...

Hope I've been somewhat covering the bases with the description ..

-Herc
------ The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 4
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 20:23:03 EDT
In a message dated 8/4/98 5:50:05 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
enwill@*****.COM writes:

> > Raid bolt:
> > When cast, it launches a bolt of concentrated insecticde at
> target.if it
> > hits a bug, the bug takes extra damage.
> > Type:Physical range:LOS
> > Target:4 Damage:L(S)
> > Duration: instant Drain: [(F/2)+3]S
>
> Yeah, for us that don't have the means or the money to make it to
> GC this year.. We have to have something to do so...
>
> Raid Fogger:
> A larger more effective version of Raid Bolt, it covers an area of
> 2meter/force pt of the spell,with a highly concentrated insecticide
> that does extra damage bugs.
> Type: Physical Range:2meters/force pt
> Target:4 Damage: L(D)
> Duration: 1rnd/Succ Drain: [F+2]D

Hey, does this sound just like variations on the Acid type manip spells out of
the grimoire ... which also brings up another point ...

Has anyone ever clued in to the fact that Restricted Target and Very
Restricted Target spell options are not allowed with manip spells, yet, there
are some spells which are Restricted in how they work ...

The perfect example of this :

Any of the specific barrier types ...

So, what do you all have to say ... as K and I have tossed out the manip
spells are not allowed to have restricted and VR target options ... we allow
them in fact ... makes for some rather interesting spells ...

-Herc
------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 5
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 10:42:35 +1000
Mike Bobroff writes:
> Has anyone ever clued in to the fact that Restricted Target and Very
> Restricted Target spell options are not allowed with manip
> spells, yet, there
> are some spells which are Restricted in how they work ...
>
> The perfect example of this :
>
> Any of the specific barrier types ...

Restricting your target is, in fact, scaling down the severity of the
manipulation. This already gives reductions in the spell cost.

For example (just making numbers up out of whole cloth):
If a Barrier spell was considered a major change to the environment, then a
Bullet Barrier spell is obviously less than a major change.

Also (more technical reason), manipulation spells do not have to synchronise
auras in order to be cast. The Restricted Target options, and Very
Restricted target options, refer to building limitations on the ability of
the spell to synchronise auras, and, as such, make no sense when applied to
manipulation spells.

Here's an example: There's a manipulation spell of Shock. It creates
lightning bolts from my hand (ala the Emperor from Return of the Jedi). I
can't exactly make a version that only affects, oh, Orks, now, can I?
Lightning is lightning.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 6
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 21:20:39 EDT
In a message dated 8/4/98 7:46:42 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
robert.watkins@******.COM writes:

> Restricting your target is, in fact, scaling down the severity of the
> manipulation. This already gives reductions in the spell cost.

Okay ....

> For example (just making numbers up out of whole cloth):
> If a Barrier spell was considered a major change to the environment, then a
> Bullet Barrier spell is obviously less than a major change.

But unlike a Barrier spell, it only affects anything hurtling through the air
like a projectile (which is what Bullet barrier protects against) .... that
means that it is a change from the all-encompassing Barrier spell, which
affects everything ...

> Also (more technical reason), manipulation spells do not have to
synchronise
> auras in order to be cast. The Restricted Target options, and Very
> Restricted target options, refer to building limitations on the ability of
> the spell to synchronise auras, and, as such, make no sense when applied to
> manipulation spells.

In the case I was mentioning with the Barrier spells, along with something
else I just noticed ...

First, what I noticed ... the specific barrier spells have a single drain code
reduction from the base Barrier spell, going from S2 to M2 ...

You could also further restrict the barrier spells to other things also ...
like making bullet barrier into an Arrow Barrier ... or Blade Barrier into a
Reach +1 barrier (anything with a reach of 1 is affected by the spell) ...

> Here's an example: There's a manipulation spell of Shock. It creates
> lightning bolts from my hand (ala the Emperor from Return of the Jedi). I
> can't exactly make a version that only affects, oh, Orks, now, can I?
> Lightning is lightning.

True, but what if you took that same Shock spell (Spark by another name), and
restricted it to coming into contact with things that are not grounded ? Or
grounded targets only ?

-Herc
------ The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 7
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 11:35:45 +1000
Mike Bobroff writes:
> > For example (just making numbers up out of whole cloth):
> > If a Barrier spell was considered a major change to the
> environment, then a
> > Bullet Barrier spell is obviously less than a major change.
>
> But unlike a Barrier spell, it only affects anything hurtling
> through the air
> like a projectile (which is what Bullet barrier protects against)
> .... that
> means that it is a change from the all-encompassing Barrier spell, which
> affects everything ...

But what I've done is reduced the effect of the change. I haven't restricted
the target. The target is the object/thing/spot I'm going to be casting the
spell on. Because the change is less drastic, the cost of the spell goes
down.

> First, what I noticed ... the specific barrier spells have a
> single drain code
> reduction from the base Barrier spell, going from S2 to M2 ...

That's because of the change in the spell effect. The environmental effect
of the spell is reduced, and so the spell goes from S to M.

> > Here's an example: There's a manipulation spell of Shock. It creates
> > lightning bolts from my hand (ala the Emperor from Return of
> the Jedi). I
> > can't exactly make a version that only affects, oh, Orks, now, can I?
> > Lightning is lightning.
>
> True, but what if you took that same Shock spell (Spark by
> another name), and
> restricted it to coming into contact with things that are not
> grounded ? Or
> grounded targets only ?

(Okay, I got the name wrong... :)

Nope. Here's how the spell works. I cast the spell. Lightning starts to
crackle out of my hand. I've then got to get the lightning to the victim.

It's just ordinary lightning. I suppose it might be possible for the
elemental effect to be modified so that, say, only grounded victim were
affected. But, and this is the important part, the process would still be
the same. I'd still make the 'lightning', and I'd still hit the victim with
the lightning. It's just that the victim wouldn't take any damage because
the type of lightning doesn't hurt it.

The key thing here is that the effects of manipulation spells are just that,
_effects_. The _target_ of the spell is where the effect manifests. This has
very little to do with any restrictions imposed on what the effect does.

(You could impose restrictions on where the spell manifests, for example,
such as a Personal restriction (which is permitted for manipulations, IIRC,
and is a variant of the restricted target mods), but in many cases you'd
have to ask yourself why you'd want to)

--
Duct tape is like the Force: There's a Light side, a Dark side, and it
binds the Universe together.
Robert Watkins -- robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 8
From: Nexx Many-Scars <Nexx3@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 22:35:36 EDT
In a message dated 04/08/98 19:19:09 Central Daylight Time, Airwasp@***.COM
writes:

> What could happen if the mage casts a spell and has a Power / Spell Foci
that
> is the same as the target's vulnerability / allergy ... like a mage tossing
> a
> Spirit Bolt at a Invae who happens to have a foci that has been made with
> insecticide in it ... the insecticide is a natural substance, not something
> mass-produced, and is radicalized by the mage in question ...

Perhaps like he used geranium (which I believe is a bug repellent for some
kinds of bugs), in the focus (or even the fetish?) I would say that it
wouldn't matter, because not enough of the insecticide would go with it. This
is strictly IMO, but I don't really view the radicalized materials as magical
in and of themselves. They're receptive to magic, are prepared to be magical,
but IIRC radicalized gold can be passed through as easily as normal gold. I
don't think the physical bits that make up a focus or fetish have any real
effect upon the spell, so long as they are valid in the magical system of the
magic-user.

Off of this topic, but still SR, I like the term magic-user, because it can
mean anybody. A physical adept is a magic user, so is a magical or elemental
adept, or a full magician. A wizard is different than a shaman or a priest or
a mambo or a druid, and doesn't sound as much like magician as mage does.

Just a pointless comment.

Nexx
Message no. 9
From: Nexx Many-Scars <Nexx3@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 22:39:14 EDT
In a message dated 04/08/98 19:24:53 Central Daylight Time, Airwasp@***.COM
writes:

> So, what do you all have to say ... as K and I have tossed out the manip
> spells are not allowed to have restricted and VR target options ... we
allow
> them in fact ... makes for some rather interesting spells ...

I think it shouldn't be tossed out, but examined on a case by case basis. Ok,
it makes sense for barrier spells, but how about a spell like acid stream? If
I make a version that affects only elves, it seems rather ridiculous that it
would veer around a troll on the way to get the elf I targeted it at.

Nexx, a firm believer in the case-by-case basis
Message no. 10
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 03:01:41 EDT
In a message dated 8/4/1998 10:17:58 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
Nexx3@***.COM writes:

> > So, what do you all have to say ... as K and I have tossed out the manip
> > spells are not allowed to have restricted and VR target options ... we
> allow
> > them in fact ... makes for some rather interesting spells ...
>
> I think it shouldn't be tossed out, but examined on a case by case basis.
> Ok,
> it makes sense for barrier spells, but how about a spell like acid stream?
> If
> I make a version that affects only elves, it seems rather ridiculous that
it
> would veer around a troll on the way to get the elf I targeted it at.
>
Actually, it would have helped had Mike mentioned that -EVERYTHING- in our
games is taken on a case-by-case basis for design. Does it work here, why/why
not? If not, what has to be done to it??? Etcetera, ad nauseum...

-K
Message no. 11
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 17:04:23 +1000
K writes:
> Actually, it would have helped had Mike mentioned that -EVERYTHING- in our
> games is taken on a case-by-case basis for design. Does it work
> here, why/why
> not? If not, what has to be done to it??? Etcetera, ad nauseum...

It would have helped a lot... :)

I still think that the inbuilt mechanism of saying that the effect of the
manipulation is restricted, and therefore less drastic than it would
otherwise have been, and thus cheaper in cost, is sufficent. And then
there's the consideration of what is the target of a manipulation spell
(which I've already gone over, and so won't do it again).

Still, whatever gets your rocks off, so to speak... each to their own.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 12
From: Drew Curtis <dcurtis@***.NET>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 07:25:13 -0400
On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, K is the Symbol wrote:

> Actually, it would have helped had Mike mentioned that -EVERYTHING- in our
> games is taken on a case-by-case basis for design. Does it work here, why/why
> not? If not, what has to be done to it??? Etcetera, ad nauseum...
>
This is still possible, from what I understand Steve is currently working
on the magic companion (Grimoire III but with a different name). Perhaps
if we requested it he'd put it in?

Drew Curtis, President, Digital Crescent, Incorporated
http://www.dcr.net (502) 226 3376 Internet and Software Design services.
Offering dial-up Access from Frankfort to Louisville and all points between.
Message no. 13
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 07:26:57 EDT
In a message dated 8/4/98 9:01:54 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
robert.watkins@******.COM writes:

> > > For example (just making numbers up out of whole cloth):
> > > If a Barrier spell was considered a major change to the
> > environment, then a
> > > Bullet Barrier spell is obviously less than a major change.
> >
> > But unlike a Barrier spell, it only affects anything hurtling
> > through the air
> > like a projectile (which is what Bullet barrier protects against)
> > .... that
> > means that it is a change from the all-encompassing Barrier spell, which
> > affects everything ...
>
> But what I've done is reduced the effect of the change. I haven't
restricted
> the target. The target is the object/thing/spot I'm going to be casting the
> spell on. Because the change is less drastic, the cost of the spell goes
> down.

Huh ... I don't get it ... sorry ... let me see if I can figure this out ...
by changing the Barrier to affect only something from a certain category ... I
am then only changing the effect ... does this sound basically like saying
"Restricted Target / Very Restricted Target." To me it sounds that way, IMHO.

> > First, what I noticed ... the specific barrier spells have a
> > single drain code
> > reduction from the base Barrier spell, going from S2 to M2 ...
>
> That's because of the change in the spell effect. The environmental effect
> of the spell is reduced, and so the spell goes from S to M.

There is a change in the environmental effect of the spell ... it has been
restricted to much more restricted environment ... hopefully SR3 is gonna help
in this area some ...

> > > Here's an example: There's a manipulation spell of Shock. It creates
> > > lightning bolts from my hand (ala the Emperor from Return of
> > the Jedi). I
> > > can't exactly make a version that only affects, oh, Orks, now, can I?
> > > Lightning is lightning.
> >
> > True, but what if you took that same Shock spell (Spark by
> > another name), and
> > restricted it to coming into contact with things that are not
> > grounded ? Or
> > grounded targets only ?
>
> (Okay, I got the name wrong... :)

Null Persp ... we sometimes just call it a Lightning Bolt anyway ... but Spark
is capable of so much more though.

> Nope. Here's how the spell works. I cast the spell. Lightning starts to
> crackle out of my hand. I've then got to get the lightning to the victim.
>
> It's just ordinary lightning. I suppose it might be possible for the
> elemental effect to be modified so that, say, only grounded victim were
> affected. But, and this is the important part, the process would still be
> the same. I'd still make the 'lightning', and I'd still hit the victim with
> the lightning. It's just that the victim wouldn't take any damage because
> the type of lightning doesn't hurt it.

True, but it would throw any form of sensors or the like on the target into a
tizzy though .. perhaps even shorting them out.

> The key thing here is that the effects of manipulation spells are just
that,
> _effects_. The _target_ of the spell is where the effect manifests. This
has
> very little to do with any restrictions imposed on what the effect does.

Hmmm ... again, this is sounding contradictory ... like the difference between
a Bullet Barrier and a Barrier spell ... the Barrier spell affects all
environments ... the Bullet Barrier is the same Barrier spell but restricted
to working against only projectiles (either coming or going) ...

> (You could impose restrictions on where the spell manifests, for example,
> such as a Personal restriction (which is permitted for manipulations, IIRC,
> and is a variant of the restricted target mods), but in many cases you'd
> have to ask yourself why you'd want to)

The reason for doing a spell with the Personal option is when you do not want
anyone else to benefit from the effects of the spell that is personalized.

-Herc
------ The Best Mechanic you can ever have.

"This sounds like an episode of "The Odd Coven."
Message no. 14
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 07:37:19 EDT
In a message dated 8/4/98 9:56:43 PM US Eastern Standard Time, Nexx3@***.COM
writes:

> > What could happen if the mage casts a spell and has a Power / Spell Foci
> that
> > is the same as the target's vulnerability / allergy ... like a mage
> tossing
> > a
> > Spirit Bolt at a Invae who happens to have a foci that has been made
with
> > insecticide in it ... the insecticide is a natural substance, not
> something
> > mass-produced, and is radicalized by the mage in question ...
>
> Perhaps like he used geranium (which I believe is a bug repellent for some
> kinds of bugs), in the focus (or even the fetish?) I would say that it
> wouldn't matter, because not enough of the insecticide would go with it.
> This
> is strictly IMO, but I don't really view the radicalized materials as
> magical
> in and of themselves. They're receptive to magic, are prepared to be
> magical,
> but IIRC radicalized gold can be passed through as easily as normal gold.
I
> don't think the physical bits that make up a focus or fetish have any real
> effect upon the spell, so long as they are valid in the magical system of
> the
> magic-user.

What would happen if an additional number of radicalized units of the material
which someone is allergic / vulnerable to, were added equal to more than the
rating of the foci which is being made? An example, a magic-user wants to
make a foci which has additional effects against people with an allergy for
gold ... the foci is a rating 3 ... and he throws in an additional 6 units of
radical gold for additional effect. What happens, possibly?

> Off of this topic, but still SR, I like the term magic-user, because it can
> mean anybody. A physical adept is a magic user, so is a magical or
> elemental
> adept, or a full magician. A wizard is different than a shaman or a priest
> or
> a mambo or a druid, and doesn't sound as much like magician as mage does.
>
> Just a pointless comment.

Actually, not quite pointless, perhaps something good even ... what's the
point though.

:)

-Herc
------ The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 15
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 07:43:01 EDT
In a message dated 8/4/98 10:16:46 PM US Eastern Standard Time, Nexx3@***.COM
writes:

> Airwasp@***.COM
> writes:
>
> > So, what do you all have to say ... as K and I have tossed out the manip
> > spells are not allowed to have restricted and VR target options ... we
> allow
> > them in fact ... makes for some rather interesting spells ...
>
> I think it shouldn't be tossed out, but examined on a case by case basis.
> Ok,
> it makes sense for barrier spells, but how about a spell like acid stream?
> If
> I make a version that affects only elves, it seems rather ridiculous that
it
> would veer around a troll on the way to get the elf I targeted it at.

Yeah, Nexx, we do believe on a case by case basis ...

> Nexx, a firm believer in the case-by-case basis

Some examples of our restricted spells ...

Clean Air with heightened AoE but only works within Aztlan ...

Analyze Device which only works on Aircraft ...

Things like that ...

-Herc
------ The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 16
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 18:47:34 -0700
Mike Bobroff wrote:

> What would happen if an additional number of radicalized units of the material
> which someone is allergic / vulnerable to, were added equal to more than the
> rating of the foci which is being made? An example, a magic-user wants to
> make a foci which has additional effects against people with an allergy for
> gold ... the foci is a rating 3 ... and he throws in an additional 6 units of
> radical gold for additional effect. What happens, possibly?

Unless the mage touches the focus to the target of the spell, nothing
outside of the usual. Why should it? The spell doesn't fling off
flakes from the foci; the spell itself is a construct of pure mana, and
that's all that hits the target. The outside possibility would be to
allow a "gold-nugget stream", similar to acid stream (with the added
bonus of being a serious cash cow) or, simply, Cause Allergy. Stacking
spells, to combine the effects of a powerbolt and a heightened allergy,
is one option.

As far as adding more units to the foci, there's no bonus gained for
that, either. RTFM.

Incidentally.. all people with an allergy to gold? That's a mighty
small population. [That's also how the munchkin mind works - gain
acceptance for one isolated example, then extrapolate that to the actual
intention.]


- Matt

------------------------------------
The truth will set you free - but first it's gonna piss you off.
- Kanya Vashon McGhee

GridSec: SRCard / Freedonian Research Assistant
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm
Message no. 17
From: Wyrmy <elfman@******.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 11:12:39 -0500
>
> Some examples of our restricted spells ...
>
> Clean Air with heightened AoE but only works within Aztlan ...
>
> Analyze Device which only works on Aircraft ...
>
> Things like that ...

Like a Spirit blast that only affects Invae?
(and BTW,I made htis thread to throw out new spells, not spell
creation.So pleas put out some new spells, abut As always I will start
this, again.
Duct Tape:
Target's mouth, arms and legs are whrapped In a gray, hard to brake tape
called "Duct" tape.
Type:P Range: los
Target: Targets Quickness(to avoid the tapeas it flies at him)
Duration:Instant DRain:[(F/2)+2]L

--
-W
============================
If you are a dreamer come in,
If you are a dreeamer, a wisher,
A liar, a magic jelly bean buyer,
Come In!
-What should be the motto of all internet users.
Message no. 18
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 16:08:18 EDT
In a message dated 8/5/98 8:13:53 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM writes:

Okay Matt, here goes ... (this is not a rant warning) ...

> > What would happen if an additional number of radicalized units of the
> material
> > which someone is allergic / vulnerable to, were added equal to more than
> the
> > rating of the foci which is being made? An example, a magic-user wants
to
> > make a foci which has additional effects against people with an allergy
> for
> > gold ... the foci is a rating 3 ... and he throws in an additional 6
units
> of
> > radical gold for additional effect. What happens, possibly?
>
> Unless the mage touches the focus to the target of the spell, nothing
> outside of the usual. Why should it? The spell doesn't fling off
> flakes from the foci; the spell itself is a construct of pure mana, and
> that's all that hits the target. The outside possibility would be to
> allow a "gold-nugget stream", similar to acid stream (with the added
> bonus of being a serious cash cow) or, simply, Cause Allergy. Stacking
> spells, to combine the effects of a powerbolt and a heightened allergy,
> is one option.

So, are you saying that you should build in something called a Vulnerability /
Allergy Effect (a possible variation of Elemental Effect) into a spell that
you want to have this effect on individuals who have said vulnerabilities /
allergies.

I do realize that having something which nails everybody with an allergy is
going to have a higher drain code than a spell which only affects people with
a limited form of allergy.

> As far as adding more units to the foci, there's no bonus gained for
> that, either. RTFM.

I know that, it says so in the book.

> Incidentally.. all people with an allergy to gold? That's a mighty
> small population. [That's also how the munchkin mind works - gain
> acceptance for one isolated example, then extrapolate that to the actual
> intention.]

Thanks for the "munchkin mind" concept on me ... I feel so wonderful know ...
NOT ... and the same can be said about you ...

The reason I was saying this is that foci add onto the Mage's magic attribute,
thereby increasing the maximum spell potential they can sling without taking
physical damage from the drain of the spell. There has to be some effect
gained from having an active foci of some sort, and this was potentially one
of those spell effects.

-Herc
------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 19
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 16:17:17 EDT
In a message dated 8/5/98 11:08:08 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
elfman@******.COM writes:

> Like a Spirit blast that only affects Invae?
> (and BTW,I made htis thread to throw out new spells, not spell
> creation.So pleas put out some new spells, abut As always I will start
> this, again.
> Duct Tape:
> Target's mouth, arms and legs are whrapped In a gray, hard to brake tape
> called "Duct" tape.
> Type:P Range: los
> Target: Targets Quickness(to avoid the tapeas it flies at him)
> Duration:Instant DRain:[(F/2)+2]L
>
Okay, here's a pretty old spell (3 + years old) ... which resulted from one of
my pcs eating binges at the time ...

Herc's Twinkie Maker
Category ............ Health
Type .................. Physical
Target ................ 4
Drain ................. L2
Duration ............. Permanent (5 turns)

Description ......... This spell creates a single edible twinkie with
absolutely no nutrional value at all whatsoever (beyond the Sugar group of
course).

There is a higher drain version of this spell (S2) which creates a number of
twinkies equal to the number of successes involved in the casting.

Another version has the twinkie as having all of the nutritional value that
someone needs for a day, and that one has a drain of S2 also.
Message no. 20
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 17:06:31 -0400
At 04:08 PM 8/5/98 EDT, you wrote:

>So, are you saying that you should build in something called a
Vulnerability /
>Allergy Effect (a possible variation of Elemental Effect) into a spell that
>you want to have this effect on individuals who have said vulnerabilities /
>allergies.

It should be feasible, though a bit odd. I mean, part of what allows a
Slay Ork spell to be effective is that you can look at your target and see
that they are and Ork (or not). How would you know if a target was
allergic to silver or wood or such? I think you'd have to have this spell
target those allergic people exclusively; I don't think you could have a
mana bolt that also just happened to do extra damage to folks with a key
allergy.

On the one hand, you've got a spell that could target people with specific
allergies. Easily doable, though not necessarily useful. Then there's a
spell that actually produces the thing that the person is allergic to.
This, such as a spray of gold, would have to be a pretty serious elemental
manipulation, even if the matter dissolved upon the cesation of Sustaining.

>The reason I was saying this is that foci add onto the Mage's magic
attribute,
>thereby increasing the maximum spell potential they can sling without taking
>physical damage from the drain of the spell. There has to be some effect
>gained from having an active foci of some sort, and this was potentially one
>of those spell effects.

You mean a draw back from having an active foci? Well, at least until SR3,
you've got your grounding problems. There's also the focus addiction
concept from Awakenings, which can be cool to use on "mechanics." And as a
GM, you could also say that an active focus is like an astral beacon, which
makes the PC with the always active focus a magnet for things like wraiths,
free spirits and whatnot. I'm pretty sure there is some precedent for that.

If you mean extra benefits, a focus is powerful enough as is I think.

I suspect that we may get more info not only when SR3 is brought back home,
but when MITS hits shelves this fall?winter? From a few bits of info Steve
granted me, there should be plenty of nasty stuff that is in MITS to be
sicced on players.

Erik J.


http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World
Message no. 21
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 22:26:34 +0100
And verily, did Mike Bobroff hastily scribble thusly...
|Okay, here's a pretty old spell (3 + years old) ... which resulted from one of
|my pcs eating binges at the time ...
|
|Herc's Twinkie Maker
|Category ............ Health

Why health? They have no nutritional value.
They really should be Manipulation spells.

|Another version has the twinkie as having all of the nutritional value that
|someone needs for a day, and that one has a drain of S2 also.
|

*THIS* one should be health....
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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 |
| Finalist in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | 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. 22
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 08:37:03 +1000
Mike Bobroff writes:
> > But what I've done is reduced the effect of the change. I haven't
> restricted
> > the target. The target is the object/thing/spot I'm going to
> be casting the
> > spell on. Because the change is less drastic, the cost of the
> spell goes
> > down.
>
> Huh ... I don't get it ... sorry ... let me see if I can figure
> this out ...
> by changing the Barrier to affect only something from a certain
> category ... I
> am then only changing the effect ... does this sound basically like saying
> "Restricted Target / Very Restricted Target." To me it sounds
> that way, IMHO.

Okay, I'll restate it with examples.

Let's say I cast a Mana Bolt. It's got a restricted target: only living
things can be targetted. So I just can not cast it at the door.

Now, let's say I've got a special damaging manipulation which, for some
reason, only effects living beings. I can cast it at anything I like, it
just will only damage living beings. So, I can cast it at the door, but it
won't get affected. The spell will manifest at me, and travel to the door,
and nothing will happen.

If I had given that damaging manipulation a restricted target, I'm
restricting the location where I can manifest the spell.

Taking a barrier into account: I've got a Barrier spell. I can centre the
effect on anything I like: me, my dog, the chair, the top of the Renraku
Arcology. If I could give it a restricted target modifier, I could give it a
Restricted Target: Living beings. This would mean that I can only centre it
on living beings (eg, me and my dog, not the chair or the Arcology). By
contrast, a Bullet Barrier I can centre where I like (unless it's got the
Personal spell restriction, which is a special case of the Restricted Target
options).

> Hmmm ... again, this is sounding contradictory ... like the
> difference between
> a Bullet Barrier and a Barrier spell ... the Barrier spell affects all
> environments ... the Bullet Barrier is the same Barrier spell but
> restricted
> to working against only projectiles (either coming or going) ...

That has nothing to do with the _target_ of the spell. The target is the
place where the barrier is manifested. This has to do with the _effect_ of
the spell.

--
Duct tape is like the Force: There's a Light side, a Dark side, and it
binds the Universe together.
Robert Watkins -- robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 23
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 19:28:12 EDT
In a message dated 8/5/98 4:27:06 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK writes:

> And verily, did Mike Bobroff hastily scribble thusly...
> |Okay, here's a pretty old spell (3 + years old) ... which resulted from
one
> of
> |my pcs eating binges at the time ...
> |
> |Herc's Twinkie Maker
> |Category ............ Health
>
> Why health? They have no nutritional value.
> They really should be Manipulation spells.

I know .. but I made it Health as it is a bad version of the Nutrition spell
... even though it is solid ...

> |Another version has the twinkie as having all of the nutritional value
that
> |someone needs for a day, and that one has a drain of S2 also.
> |
>
> *THIS* one should be health....

True ... and that it is ...

Plus, a twinkie has been described as having the half-life of plutonium or
something as long-lived ...

Besides, I have my pc, Herc, walking around with a eye glass case and whenever
he wants one he activates the anchoring and out comes a twinkie a few secs
later.

-Herc
------ The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 24
From: Nexx Many-Scars <Nexx3@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 22:46:11 EDT
In a message dated 05/08/98 06:38:06 Central Daylight Time, Airwasp@***.COM
writes:

> What would happen if an additional number of radicalized units of the
> material
> which someone is allergic / vulnerable to, were added equal to more than
the
> rating of the foci which is being made? An example, a magic-user wants to
> make a foci which has additional effects against people with an allergy for
> gold ... the foci is a rating 3 ... and he throws in an additional 6 units
> of
> radical gold for additional effect. What happens, possibly?

Possibly? Most anything. I suppose, if you designed focus with that in mind
(as in, worked it into the formula, spending mroe time and money to do so), I
would allow it to affect them like their allergy did, but it would be a cast-
iron bitch to create.

Nexx
Message no. 25
From: Nexx Many-Scars <Nexx3@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 23:12:04 EDT
In a message dated 05/08/98 08:14:09 Central Daylight Time,
mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM writes:

> Incidentally.. all people with an allergy to gold? That's a mighty
> small population. [That's also how the munchkin mind works - gain
> acceptance for one isolated example, then extrapolate that to the actual
> intention.]

I made a physad once with a severe allergy to orchalium. Sure, it seems like
"When is this ever gonna come up", but when you realize that all weapon foci
use orichalum...
Message no. 26
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 22:23:03 -0500
>> Incidentally.. all people with an allergy to gold? That's a mighty
>> small population.
>
>I made a physad once with a severe allergy to orchalium. Sure, it
>seems like "When is this ever gonna come up", but when you realize
>that all weapon foci use orichalum....

Yeah, but the allergy only comes into play when you touch the stuff; it
doesn't radiate like kryptonite. At least not in my game. <g>

Make the weapon focus a knife (the most common), keep it in a sheath, wrap a
leather strip around the grip, and you should be safe. It's sharpening the
damn thing that could be a major pain....

---
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 27
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 16:40:52 EDT
In a message dated 8/5/98 4:13:01 PM US Eastern Standard Time, erikj@****.COM
writes:

> >So, are you saying that you should build in something called a
> Vulnerability /
> >Allergy Effect (a possible variation of Elemental Effect) into a spell
that
> >you want to have this effect on individuals who have said vulnerabilities
/
> >allergies.
>
> It should be feasible, though a bit odd. I mean, part of what allows a
> Slay Ork spell to be effective is that you can look at your target and see
> that they are and Ork (or not). How would you know if a target was
> allergic to silver or wood or such? I think you'd have to have this spell
> target those allergic people exclusively; I don't think you could have a
> mana bolt that also just happened to do extra damage to folks with a key
> allergy.

When you have this type of option added onto a foci, that means the mage is
certain of encountering certain types of people with allergies or
vulnerabilities alot of the time. An example of this would be any of the
Hunter archetypes ... like Vampire Hunters would like elemental effect
(Light), Bughunters would like Insecticide ... Shaper-Hunters would like
Silver ... this is something those types of people would want.

Then there is one type of mage/shaman that is able of getting anybody ... a
toxic shaman with a -TOXIC FOCI- (not meant to be yelled ... just noticed more
easily) ... this would get everyone ill to a point after being nailed by a
spell which had this foci active and running at the time.

> On the one hand, you've got a spell that could target people with specific
> allergies. Easily doable, though not necessarily useful. Then there's a
> spell that actually produces the thing that the person is allergic to.
> This, such as a spray of gold, would have to be a pretty serious elemental
> manipulation, even if the matter dissolved upon the cesation of Sustaining.

Which is something I should have meant ... though for a significant increase
in the design of the foci, you could build the foci as being able to nail
everybody (which we do allow ... but your target numbers go up from a +4 for
adding in a single allergy/vulnerability to +10 for nailing everything that
moves).

> >The reason I was saying this is that foci add onto the Mage's magic
> attribute,
> >thereby increasing the maximum spell potential they can sling without
> taking
> >physical damage from the drain of the spell. There has to be some effect
> >gained from having an active foci of some sort, and this was potentially
> one
> >of those spell effects.
>
> You mean a draw back from having an active foci? Well, at least until SR3,
> you've got your grounding problems. There's also the focus addiction
> concept from Awakenings, which can be cool to use on "mechanics." And as
a
> GM, you could also say that an active focus is like an astral beacon, which
> makes the PC with the always active focus a magnet for things like wraiths,
> free spirits and whatnot. I'm pretty sure there is some precedent for
that.

I would agree that this foci would attract certain beings that are aligned
with the energies of the foci.

> If you mean extra benefits, a focus is powerful enough as is I think.

As for benefits, I was looking at perhaps causing an allergic / vulnerability
reaction ... and thereby making healing target numbers on the person much
higher afterwards.

> I suspect that we may get more info not only when SR3 is brought back home,
> but when MITS hits shelves this fall?winter? From a few bits of info Steve
> granted me, there should be plenty of nasty stuff that is in MITS to be
> sicced on players.

I agree ... I am still looking forward to seeing what the SR3 has in store for
us ... along with the new Grimoire.

-Herc
------ The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 28
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 21:46:39 +0100
And verily, did Mike Bobroff hastily scribble thusly...
|> On the one hand, you've got a spell that could target people with specific
|> allergies. Easily doable, though not necessarily useful. Then there's a
|> spell that actually produces the thing that the person is allergic to.
|> This, such as a spray of gold, would have to be a pretty serious elemental

Hmmm. a spray of gold....
Just what I need against those dratted Cybermen....
:)


|> manipulation, even if the matter dissolved upon the cesation of Sustaining.
|
|Which is something I should have meant ... though for a significant increase
|in the design of the foci, you could build the foci as being able to nail
|everybody (which we do allow ... but your target numbers go up from a +4 for
|adding in a single allergy/vulnerability to +10 for nailing everything that
|moves).
|
|> >The reason I was saying this is that foci add onto the Mage's magic
|> attribute,
|> >thereby increasing the maximum spell potential they can sling without
|> taking
|> >physical damage from the drain of the spell. There has to be some effect
|> >gained from having an active foci of some sort, and this was potentially
|> one
|> >of those spell effects.
|>
|> You mean a draw back from having an active foci? Well, at least until SR3,
|> you've got your grounding problems. There's also the focus addiction
|> concept from Awakenings, which can be cool to use on "mechanics." And as
a
|> GM, you could also say that an active focus is like an astral beacon, which
|> makes the PC with the always active focus a magnet for things like wraiths,
|> free spirits and whatnot. I'm pretty sure there is some precedent for
|that.
|
|I would agree that this foci would attract certain beings that are aligned
|with the energies of the foci.
|
|> If you mean extra benefits, a focus is powerful enough as is I think.
|
|As for benefits, I was looking at perhaps causing an allergic / vulnerability
|reaction ... and thereby making healing target numbers on the person much
|higher afterwards.
|
|> I suspect that we may get more info not only when SR3 is brought back home,
|> but when MITS hits shelves this fall?winter? From a few bits of info Steve
|> granted me, there should be plenty of nasty stuff that is in MITS to be
|> sicced on players.
|
|I agree ... I am still looking forward to seeing what the SR3 has in store for
|us ... along with the new Grimoire.
|
|-Herc
|------ The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
|


--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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 |
| Finalist in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | 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. 29
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 16:47:02 EDT
In a message dated 8/5/98 5:41:47 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
robert.watkins@******.COM writes:

> > > But what I've done is reduced the effect of the change. I haven't
> > restricted
> > > the target. The target is the object/thing/spot I'm going to
> > be casting the
> > > spell on. Because the change is less drastic, the cost of the
> > spell goes
> > > down.
> >
> > Huh ... I don't get it ... sorry ... let me see if I can figure
> > this out ...
> > by changing the Barrier to affect only something from a certain
> > category ... I
> > am then only changing the effect ... does this sound basically like
saying
> > "Restricted Target / Very Restricted Target." To me it sounds
> > that way, IMHO.
>
> Okay, I'll restate it with examples.
>
> Let's say I cast a Mana Bolt. It's got a restricted target: only living
> things can be targetted. So I just can not cast it at the door.

True ... so in a way it has a Restricted Target : Living Things Only, in a
round-about way.

> Now, let's say I've got a special damaging manipulation which, for some
> reason, only effects living beings. I can cast it at anything I like, it
> just will only damage living beings. So, I can cast it at the door, but it
> won't get affected. The spell will manifest at me, and travel to the door,
> and nothing will happen.

Okay ... I get the point ...

> If I had given that damaging manipulation a restricted target, I'm
> restricting the location where I can manifest the spell.

Hmmm ... I wonder if we are crossing hairs over the term Restricted Target and
Location where the effect can take place.

What I am trying to come across with is that the rules state no Restricted or
VRT spells are allowed for manipulation spells, yet there are exceptions to
the rules ... like all of the specialized barrier spells. What I am trying to
say was this just something the game developers came up with as a YES-BUT
scenario ... yes, there are some spells which only affect certain things,
-BUT- not everything like the base spell ...

> Taking a barrier into account: I've got a Barrier spell. I can centre the
> effect on anything I like: me, my dog, the chair, the top of the Renraku
> Arcology. If I could give it a restricted target modifier, I could give it
a
> Restricted Target: Living beings. This would mean that I can only centre it
> on living beings (eg, me and my dog, not the chair or the Arcology). By
> contrast, a Bullet Barrier I can centre where I like (unless it's got the
> Personal spell restriction, which is a special case of the Restricted
Target
> options).

Hmmm ... Barrier (Restricted Target : Living Beings Only) = Mana Barrier

Oh, you can cast any of the barrier spells anywhere you want to ... although a
Mana Barrier spell is not going to do much good against a sniper ... and the
potentials go on and on ...

> > Hmmm ... again, this is sounding contradictory ... like the
> > difference between
> > a Bullet Barrier and a Barrier spell ... the Barrier spell affects all
> > environments ... the Bullet Barrier is the same Barrier spell but
> > restricted
> > to working against only projectiles (either coming or going) ...
>
> That has nothing to do with the _target_ of the spell. The target is the
> place where the barrier is manifested. This has to do with the _effect_ of
> the spell.

Yeah .. but the effects of the barrier only work against Bullets ... sounds
Restricted Target to me ...

-Herc
------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 30
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 18:48:30 -0400
At 04:40 PM 8/6/98 EDT, you wrote:

>When you have this type of option added onto a foci, that means the mage is
>certain of encountering certain types of people with allergies or
>vulnerabilities alot of the time. An example of this would be any of the
>Hunter archetypes ... like Vampire Hunters would like elemental effect
>(Light), Bughunters would like Insecticide ... Shaper-Hunters would like
>Silver ... this is something those types of people would want.

Okay, I wasn't totally sure what you going after. Now I *think* I know.

You want a spell focus that has the added benefit of being able to
affect/cause allergies via the spells cast *through* the focus at the
targets in question, and have this allergy affect be a rider but not
necessarily integral to the actual spell being cast.

Still with me? ;-)

Okay. I'd have to say no, if for no other reason than by defining what a
spell focus does. It doesn't actually alter or directly affect the spells
being cast, it merely helps the *caster* do his thing. Part of the magic
energy gets channeled through the focus instead of all going through the
caster. I'm pretty sure this is common knowledge and is a generally
accepted definition, but making sure...

Okay, does the energy passing through a focus made with silver (for
example) take on the traits of the silver? This would be the big question,
the one that would define if you can have a focus cause an allergic
reaction, since if it did, your focus idea works.

But I'd have to say no. The focus is a bit like a PVC pipe, it channels
mana. Water passing through a pipe doesn't necessarily pick up the traits
of the pipe through which it's passing. Okay, not a very good example, but
close enough for government work. I don't see that the mana takes on the
properties and traits of the *physical* means by which it is cast.

>As for benefits, I was looking at perhaps causing an allergic / vulnerability
>reaction ... and thereby making healing target numbers on the person much
>higher afterwards.

Ah, I see what the ultimate goal is. Not only hit your opponents harder,
but make it take larger and more effort to put them back on their feet
later on. Interesting and a very different way of trying to hit someone
hard than just using bigger guns and spells.

As I said above, I really don't think this would be possible, based on how
I understand the mechanics of magic and foci. Now I think you could create
nasty little *spells* that target allergies in all sorts of ways that might
be able to create a similar affect to what you are doing. But I think a
foci is out of the question.

>> I suspect that we may get more info not only when SR3 is brought back
home,
>> but when MITS hits shelves this fall?winter? From a few bits of info
Steve
>> granted me, there should be plenty of nasty stuff that is in MITS to be
>> sicced on players.
>
>I agree ... I am still looking forward to seeing what the SR3 has in store
for
>us ... along with the new Grimoire.

Yuppers. I'm pretty sure I know what's up with basic SR3 magic. And Steve
gave me just a tiny glimpse, nearly nothing at all really, of something
that'll be in MITS that hearkens back to one of the articles on his home
page and I damn near started dancing in my office. Not because I got a
teaser about MITS, but because the idea was so cool. Let's just say that
one of the questions, one of the last ones from the SLand comments, from
Awakeninings gets answered. And honestly, Steve barely told me any more
than that. He's the damn master of the tease, let me tell you. Damn
annoying really.

Erik J.


http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World
Message no. 31
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 10:28:06 +1000
Mike Bobroff writes:
> Yeah .. but the effects of the barrier only work against Bullets
> ... sounds
> Restricted Target to me ...

*sigh* Mike, I'm running out of ways to explain this... I suggest you go
back and read the manipulation section of spell design in the Grimoire.

Here's the logic: For manipulation spells, the base drain has to do with the
nature of the change to the enviroment. The more drastic the change, the
more powerful the drain. With me so far?

Now, a change that causes bullets to be stopped is less drastic than a
change that causes everything to be stopped. Still with me?

This follows that the drain for the spell is less. Right?

Okay, now for the last jump... this isn't anything to do with the target of
the spell. The target of a spell is the point where the spell manifests (I'd
say what you're casting _at_, but that gets confusing for Damaging
Manipulations). As you can clearly see, the fact that a Bullet Barrier only
stops bullets has nothing to do with the target of the spell... that's an
effect of the spell.

I'm not going to go over this again, as I've run out of ways to explain
it... ;)

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 32
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:41:15 EDT
In a message dated 8/6/98 7:30:42 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
robert.watkins@******.COM writes:

> > Yeah .. but the effects of the barrier only work against Bullets
> > ... sounds
> > Restricted Target to me ...
>
> *sigh* Mike, I'm running out of ways to explain this... I suggest you go
> back and read the manipulation section of spell design in the Grimoire.

Okay, after this final explanation ... I understand what you are describing
finally ... I'll talk this over with K some ... it should help him out too ...
now to see what changes SR3 will do to the magic system now ...

-Herc
------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 33
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 22:16:16 -0700
Erik Jameson wrote:

> Okay, does the energy passing through a focus made with silver (for
> example) take on the traits of the silver? This would be the big question,
> the one that would define if you can have a focus cause an allergic
> reaction, since if it did, your focus idea works.

Realize that it's applicable to more than just allergies (silver or no):
Everyone, after a fashion, is "allergic" to mercury (or cyanide, or a
host of other things). Allowing focuses to gain bonuses because of
their construction could easily be munchkinized into having the mage
with the mercury brooch - which he's not touching directly, so no harm -
to inflict even more damage on the unsuspecting populace, with no change
to the drain he's going to be taking.

Not to mention the "howzit work?" aspect, which you covered pretty
nicely. (I have, incidentally, never encountered the explanation that
spell energy passes through the focus, although I can see how the term
could be used - focus, lens, blah. I'm used to the understanding that
it's something that helps the mage focus, mentally; which keys into its
game use much better.)


- Matt

------------------------------------
The truth will set you free - but first it's gonna piss you off.
- Kanya Vashon McGhee

GridSec: SRCard / Freedonian Research Assistant
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm
Message no. 34
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 22:27:29 -0700
Mike Bobroff wrote:
>
> In a message dated 8/5/98 8:13:53 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
> mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM writes:
>
> Okay Matt, here goes ... (this is not a rant warning) ...

> > Unless the mage touches the focus to the target of the spell, nothing
> > outside of the usual. Why should it? The spell doesn't fling off
> > flakes from the foci; the spell itself is a construct of pure mana, and
> > that's all that hits the target. The outside possibility would be to
> > allow a "gold-nugget stream", similar to acid stream (with the added
> > bonus of being a serious cash cow) or, simply, Cause Allergy. Stacking
> > spells, to combine the effects of a powerbolt and a heightened allergy,
> > is one option.

> So, are you saying that you should build in something called a Vulnerability /
> Allergy Effect (a possible variation of Elemental Effect) into a spell that
> you want to have this effect on individuals who have said vulnerabilities /
> allergies.

No -- that's what you're saying. (I thought you and Keith had finally
gotten rid of that habit of putting words in other people's mouths....)

Causing allergies is a Health effect; causing damage is a combat
effect. The two don't mix.

> I do realize that having something which nails everybody with an allergy is
> going to have a higher drain code than a spell which only affects people with
> a limited form of allergy.

All of which, at the very least -- if they were even allowed to exist --
should have a higher base drain than the 'normal' version. Keying that
into the focus' creation, however, completely subverts the additional
drain penalty that *ought* to come with causing 'more' effect.

> > As far as adding more units to the foci, there's no bonus gained for
> > that, either. RTFM.

> I know that, it says so in the book.

So you asked because ... ?

> > Incidentally.. all people with an allergy to gold? That's a mighty
> > small population. [That's also how the munchkin mind works - gain
> > acceptance for one isolated example, then extrapolate that to the actual
> > intention.]

> Thanks for the "munchkin mind" concept on me ... I feel so wonderful know
...
> NOT ... and the same can be said about you ...

I'd have to disagree. See, I'm not proposing it. I can see the
deleterious effects it might have, and know how to back away from it.
Sure, it might lead to some fun things -- Bughunters with they spray-can
foci -- but, because there's so much *else* that it would allow, it gets
the nix. It doesn't hurt bughunters, or ghostbusters, or whomever;
they're still fun and playable.

> The reason I was saying this is that foci add onto the Mage's magic attribute,
> thereby increasing the maximum spell potential they can sling without taking
> physical damage from the drain of the spell. There has to be some effect
> gained from having an active foci of some sort, and this was potentially one
> of those spell effects.

There *is* a bonus from having an active focus - exactly what you
describe above. It increases their maximum spell potential (kinda,
sorta). Why do you need more?


- Matt

------------------------------------
The truth will set you free - but first it's gonna piss you off.
- Kanya Vashon McGhee

GridSec: SRCard / Freedonian Research Assistant
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm
Message no. 35
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 14:05:19 -0400
At 10:16 PM 8/10/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Erik Jameson wrote:
>
>> Okay, does the energy passing through a focus made with silver (for
>> example) take on the traits of the silver? This would be the big question,
>> the one that would define if you can have a focus cause an allergic
>> reaction, since if it did, your focus idea works.
>
>Realize that it's applicable to more than just allergies (silver or no):
>Everyone, after a fashion, is "allergic" to mercury (or cyanide, or a
>host of other things). Allowing focuses to gain bonuses because of
>their construction could easily be munchkinized into having the mage
>with the mercury brooch - which he's not touching directly, so no harm -
>to inflict even more damage on the unsuspecting populace, with no change
>to the drain he's going to be taking.

Agreed. I don't think the intention of Mike is necessarily munchkinous,
but it can easily be used in such a fashion far too easily.

>could be used - focus, lens, blah. I'm used to the understanding that
>it's something that helps the mage focus, mentally; which keys into its
>game use much better.)

That would actually be a fetish. That's the sort of mental crutch you are
talking about.

At least in SR2, the "cosmology" if you will of mana mechanics, as I
understand it, states that when a spell is cast, the caster channels raw
mana through their body, hence drain. A focus relieves some of that
tension by allowing mana to flow through it instead of the magician's body.
This can allow the magician to try a more powerful spell (full mana in him
and the focus, would in game be like using foci dice for successes). Or it
can be used to route some of the normal energy through the focus instead of
the body (partial mana in him, the rest in the focus, would in game be like
using the foci dice for drain resistance).

Now, the cosmology of SR3 magic is, at least from the playtest materials,
very different from SR2 (even if the game mechanics remain the same in many
instances). I fully expect to have the cosmology, the "mana mechanics"
more fully explained in MITS.

Erik J.


http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World
Message no. 36
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 01:43:38 -0700
Erik Jameson wrote:

<snip>

> >could be used - focus, lens, blah. I'm used to the understanding that
> >it's something that helps the mage focus, mentally; which keys into its
> >game use much better.)

> That would actually be a fetish. That's the sort of mental crutch you are
> talking about.

That would actually be a focus. I think Mike might've had a better
chance convincing me if the allergy-affecting spell to have a fetish
involved -- something the caster is going to actually whirl or fling or
otherwise bring into contact with the target. I can more easily see a
spell taking on some semblance of a fetish (which would be consumed in
the process) than I can a focus (something that's permanent, and doesn't
affect the spell-casting as directly as a fetish does).

As far as the mechanics -- honestly, I see things exactly opposite. A
focus stays with a mage, helps him concentrate on the entirety of
spellcasting (or whatever the purpose of the focus is). A fetish,
though, affects only that one spell; without the fetish, there's no
'lens' to focus the spell energy through.

A good reason for MITS, to clear all of this up...


- Matt
Message no. 37
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 22:30:54 +0100
And verily, did Matb hastily scribble thusly...
|
|Erik Jameson wrote:
|
|> Okay, does the energy passing through a focus made with silver (for
|> example) take on the traits of the silver? This would be the big question,
|> the one that would define if you can have a focus cause an allergic
|> reaction, since if it did, your focus idea works.
|
|Realize that it's applicable to more than just allergies (silver or no):
|Everyone, after a fashion, is "allergic" to mercury (or cyanide, or a
|host of other things).

Now *that* is what I call a generalisation. And an incorrect one at that.
Arrelgic reactions and toxic reactions are entirely different with different
causes and different results.

Toxins cause reactions within the body that shouldn't happen, such as
preventing cells from taking in oxygen (cyanide).

Allergic reactions are the body being triggered by the allergen to cause
it's immune system to go hyper and start attacking itself.

Allowing focuses to gain bonuses because of
|their construction could easily be munchkinized into having the mage
|with the mercury brooch - which he's not touching directly, so no harm -
|to inflict even more damage on the unsuspecting populace, with no change
|to the drain he's going to be taking.

Nope. Mercury fumes can be just as dangerous as the liquid, if not more so.
The reason the term "Mad as a hatter" exists is because Hatters used raw
mercury in the production of Bowler hats. The fumes got into their lungs,
into their blood, and built up in the fatty tissue of the brain, causing
eventual insanity.

Messing about with mercury is *bad*. Very bad.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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 |
| Finalist in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | 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. 38
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 17:44:08 -0400
At 01:43 AM 8/11/98 -0700, you wrote:

>> That would actually be a fetish. That's the sort of mental crutch you are
>> talking about.
>
>That would actually be a focus.

No...

>As far as the mechanics -- honestly, I see things exactly opposite. A
>focus stays with a mage, helps him concentrate on the entirety of
>spellcasting (or whatever the purpose of the focus is). A fetish,
>though, affects only that one spell; without the fetish, there's no
>'lens' to focus the spell energy through.

Okay, think about this. A magician can cast a spell even without a focus
of any sort (and they range from power foci to specific spell foci) and not
have it impede him/her at all. A magician cannot however, cast a spell
that requires a fetish if he doesn't have that fetish.

Now, a magician can use a focus as a resuasable fetish (I think all feti (I
hate that word) are reusable in SR3, correct?) if he so chooses. And if
there are only reusable feti, then it can't be consumed in the spell
casting. I suspect that this consumption was one of the niggling little
details that bothered Steve, and so (I think) was removed. Since you have
SR3, could you confirm this? I don't have my playtest stuff with me to be
able to say it existed even there.

Also, a fetish is simply specially prepared, but isn't enchanted and
invested with karma, as a focus is. What that means is that the focus is
actually magically active and a fetish isn't. From that you could conclude
that a non-magical fetish is really more of a mental crutch than a "lens"
and that the magical foci actually do something like focus or channel mana.

I really don't see how a non-magical item, a fetish, can really help
channel mana or act as a lens or whatever.

>A good reason for MITS, to clear all of this up...

Honestly, I thought it was clear. I've always read feti as mental crutches
and foci as magical items designed to help channel mana. To be truthful, I
thought that was relatively common knowledge, though opinions about
specifics and phrasings may differ. It's entirely possible I've been wrong
all these years, but that would also mean many many other people are also
wrong; not impossible, just unlikely.

But yes, SR3 mucks things up a bit, so this discussion may actually be
moot, I'm not sure. And regardless, MITS should help. I'm pretty sure,
from previous discussions/statements from Steve K., the in-game theories of
magic and such will be presented in MITS. Probably more from Kano and
Whitefeather...magical theory needs new blood Steve. Please, use some
different scientists in MITS.

Erik J.


http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World
Message no. 39
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 22:52:23 +0100
And verily, did Spike hastily scribble thusly...
|Arrelgic reactions and toxic reactions are entirely different with different
^^^^^^^^
LOL! Now *that's* what I *CALL* fumbled fingers....
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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 |
| Finalist in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | 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. 40
From: Nexx Many-Scars <Nexx3@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 18:23:25 EDT
In a message dated 98-08-10 12:53:39 EDT, you write:

> Causing allergies is a Health effect; causing damage is a combat
> effect. The two don't mix.

Actually, if you take a look at the actuallity surrounding those two spell
categories, they mix to a huge degree. The effects of a combat spell is to
damage a target by manipulating its etheric form, be it a mana bolt punching a
hole in it or a Hellblast incinerating it... most of the damage is inflicted
on the astral, with the physical effects being less important (unlike a
damaging manipulation, where all of the energy is gathered in the mage, who
releases it as a mostly physical form).

Health spells, like combat spells, work primarily by manipulating a targets
etheric form, in most cases to sew up damage or reinforce the target's aura
(like with Treat or Increase Attribute), though it can also be used to
subtlely weaken a targets aura (such as with Blindness or Cause Allergy).
Really, the two spell categories are just opposite sides of the same coin,
doing things in the same way, but to cause opposite effects.

Nexx
Message no. 41
From: Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 19:04:57 -0700
>Now, a magician can use a focus as a resuasable fetish (I think all feti (I
>hate that word) are reusable in SR3, correct?) if he so chooses. And if
>there are only reusable feti, then it can't be consumed in the spell
>casting. I suspect that this consumption was one of the niggling little
>details that bothered Steve, and so (I think) was removed. Since you have
>SR3, could you confirm this? I don't have my playtest stuff with me to be
>able to say it existed even there.

You are correct as to SR3 fetish funtion, excepting one rule note; fetish
(and excluysive) modifiers EITHER reduce spell force for drain purposes (TN
and stun / physiacl) OR for purposes of learning the spell (TN and karma
spent). I can't recall the playtest functioning of fetishes, and Steve can
speak for his own motivations (you guess seems good, but I never asked).

>
>Also, a fetish is simply specially prepared, but isn't enchanted and
>invested with karma, as a focus is. What that means is that the focus is
>actually magically active and a fetish isn't. From that you could conclude
>that a non-magical fetish is really more of a mental crutch than a "lens"
>and that the magical foci actually do something like focus or channel mana.


In a way, its like doing some of the work on the spell before hand... I
would not be suprised if thier creation in MITS required sorcery, instead of
enchanting.


>But yes, SR3 mucks things up a bit, so this discussion may actually be
>moot, I'm not sure. And regardless, MITS should help. I'm pretty sure,
>from previous discussions/statements from Steve K., the in-game theories of
>magic and such will be presented in MITS. Probably more from Kano and
>Whitefeather...magical theory needs new blood Steve. Please, use some
>different scientists in MITS.


Mike did discuss the "theory" behind some magic rules, but did not make
clear if these were "theories" as a SR character would understand them or
meta-game concepts.

Mongoose
Message no. 42
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 01:30:19 EDT
In a message dated 8/10/1998 7:17:20 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
evamarie@**********.net writes:

> >Also, a fetish is simply specially prepared, but isn't enchanted and
> >invested with karma, as a focus is. What that means is that the focus is
> >actually magically active and a fetish isn't. From that you could
conclude
> >that a non-magical fetish is really more of a mental crutch than a
"lens"
> >and that the magical foci actually do something like focus or channel
mana.
> In a way, its like doing some of the work on the spell before hand...
I
> would not be suprised if thier creation in MITS required sorcery, instead
of
> enchanting.

Actually, I did ask Steve on that one, and he said that Enchanting rules still
existed, and I got the impression that Enchanting would remain in the rules as
well. Everyone can guess why I asked of course..

-K (who is sharpening the big SR3 Razor for Binder's new Shave&A Haircut
routine :)
Message no. 43
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 03:47:48 -0700
Spike wrote:

> And verily, did Matb hastily scribble thusly...

Not as hastily as you might have thought, grasshopper.

> |Realize that it's applicable to more than just allergies (silver or no):
> |Everyone, after a fashion, is "allergic" to mercury (or cyanide, or a
> |host of other things).

> Now *that* is what I call a generalisation. And an incorrect one at that.
> Arrelgic reactions and toxic reactions are entirely different with different
> causes and different results.

And I agree with you. However, if you're going to allow spells to take
on properties of foci, or if you allow spells to trigger bodily
reactions, then you're going to run into this problem. 'Cause Allergy'
makes the target react to *something*, by whatever means. It's not to
difficult to extend it from a reaction to an allergen to a raction to a
toxin - mostly because the Allergy spell doesn't create a physical
substance, but forces a bodily reaction. (The Oxygenate spell could
also be abused in a similar manner.)

> Allowing focuses to gain bonuses because of
> |their construction could easily be munchkinized into having the mage
> |with the mercury brooch - which he's not touching directly, so no harm -
> |to inflict even more damage on the unsuspecting populace, with no change
> |to the drain he's going to be taking.

> Nope. Mercury fumes can be just as dangerous as the liquid, if not more so.
> The reason the term "Mad as a hatter" exists is because Hatters used raw
> mercury in the production of Bowler hats. The fumes got into their lungs,
> into their blood, and built up in the fatty tissue of the brain, causing
> eventual insanity.

This, I know. (Note -- 'Mercury brooch' sounds pretty solid, which
would require it to be in an amalgam, and possibly not pure enough to
use as a focus, and probably no longer dangerous; however, a sealed
phial of mercury - what I thought I originally proposed - is still
within the realm of allowability).


- Matt

------------------------------------
The truth will set you free - but first it's gonna piss you off.
- Kanya Vashon McGhee

GridSec: SRCard / Freedonian Research Assistant
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm
Message no. 44
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 03:59:56 -0700
Erik Jameson wrote:

> >> That would actually be a fetish. That's the sort of mental crutch you are
> >> talking about.

> >That would actually be a focus.

> No...

Yes? (Question mark mostly because I'm having fun now.)

Don't get me wrong -- I agree with you. I also agree with me. It's
partly because words and their usage are slippery; partly because any
conversation about magic seems to be by nature slippery as well; and
partly a difference in game style and flavor.

I (used to?) think that allowing some flexibility in the game system is
a good thing -- there are always going to differences in the
understanding of magic, its terms and effects, however. SR3, and MITS,
is a good spot to re-define things. I haven't quite had enough time to
decide whether or not they succeeded in that.


- Matt

------------------------------------
The truth will set you free - but first it's gonna piss you off.
- Kanya Vashon McGhee

GridSec: SRCard / Freedonian Research Assistant
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about New spells Anyone?, 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!