Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Gossamer <kajohnson@*******.TEC.WI.US>
Subject:	Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Mon, 21 Apr 1997 14:34:54 -0500

Message no. 1 OK, so let's take this into a thread of its own please. I'd like to
know what everyone thinks of this here...

> > In the description about 'noticing spellcasting' it states that it
assumes
> > the tn to notice spellcasting is (magic rating - force) *2. What is
> > noticed is, if i remember correctly, the minor gesticulations,
> > movements, words that has to be used to cast the spell. This
> > implies that the mage has to do *SOMETHING* more than just look
> > at the target to cast the spell. Unless the mage has a geas, though,
> > that 'something' isn't restricting enough that it'd be impossible to do

> > with tied hands, for instance, but wouldn't paralyzation be enough?
>
> Do the noticing spellcasting rules stem from the need of verbal or
somatic
> components, or are they just side-effects of the concentration involved?
> You don't need to speak or gesture to astrally percieve, but I would
rule
> that a perceptive mundane might notice you are distracted. Not because
they
> can tell you are astrally percieving, but that you are distracted. I
would
> make a similar ruling if a sammy was listening to a headphone
conversation.
> Generally, the bigger the distraction modifier (+2? for aura reading),
the
> easier it is to notice.
>
> Someone else mentioned that maybe it's the spell energy itself that could
be
> spotted, like noticing an spirit present only in astral space. That
could
> work, too. But that would mean they could percieve sustained spells as
> well, which I would say they couldn't.

The way I have always perceived and interpreted this situation (ie Noticing
Spellcasting) is that with higher levels of Spell Force, there comes into
existence a certain 'luminescence'. kind of an astral overspillage which is
detectable by observers. That's what we see on the cover of SRII...

That's how I see it anyway...

Can someone else please put better, cleaner, more concise terms to
my thoughts please. I have just recently returned from a metaplanar
quest and my mind and spirit are blown...

Gossamer,
freshly back from the Place of Knowledge (failed to reach the Citadel)

From:	Loki <daddyjim@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Mon, 21 Apr 1997 15:27:16 -0700

Message no. 2 ---Gossamer wrote:
>
> The way I have always perceived and interpreted this situation (ie
Noticing
> Spellcasting) is that with higher levels of Spell Force, there comes
into
> existence a certain 'luminescence'. kind of an astral overspillage
which is
> detectable by observers. That's what we see on the cover of SRII...
>
> That's how I see it anyway...
>
> Gossamer,

That's how I handle it in the games I run as well. What the T# is
representing is a character's chance to notice a physical plane echo
of the astral energies driving the spell. There are no somatic or
verbal components to spell weaving as far as I'm aware. If they
already existed in spellcasting, there would be no reason that they
could be chosen as a gaes.

@>--,--'--- Loki

Poisoned Elves: www.primenet.com/~gamemstr/

_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com

From:	Ray & Tamara <macey@*******.COM.AU>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Tue, 22 Apr 1997 10:31:37 +1000

Message no. 3 > The way I have always perceived and interpreted this situation (ie
Noticing
> Spellcasting) is that with higher levels of Spell Force, there comes into
> existence a certain 'luminescence'. kind of an astral overspillage which
is
> detectable by observers. That's what we see on the cover of SRII...
>
> That's how I see it anyway...
>
> Can someone else please put better, cleaner, more concise terms to
> my thoughts please. I have just recently returned from a metaplanar
> quest and my mind and spirit are blown...

I always thought that there was a tiny bit of gesturing and/or speaking, ie
1 word, or the caster points his hand or something. The mage can't just
stand at attention and zap someone without moving. The Geas make the
speaking or the gestures unmistakable as anything but spellcasting.

Ray.

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

EMAIL: macey@*******.com.au

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Tue, 22 Apr 1997 12:31:13 +0100

Message no. 4 Ray & Tamara said on 10:31/22 Apr 97...

> I always thought that there was a tiny bit of gesturing and/or speaking, ie
> 1 word, or the caster points his hand or something. The mage can't just
> stand at attention and zap someone without moving.

Yes, they can. It's the whole reason mage masks have been invented: a
magician with his hands bound can still cast spells at you as if he were
completely free. The mage mask gives so many confusing sensory inputs that
spellcasting becomes very difficult, if not impossible.

> The Geas make the speaking or the gestures unmistakable as anything but
> spellcasting.

If you know that. I imagine that to a mundane who's never seen a real
magician at work, the geas may not look like spellcasting at all.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I hate playing Solitaire by myself.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

From:	Caric <caric@********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Tue, 22 Apr 1997 08:30:59 -0700

Message no. 5 Ray hypothesized:

> I always thought that there was a tiny bit of gesturing and/or speaking,
ie
> 1 word, or the caster points his hand or something. The mage can't just
> stand at attention and zap someone without moving. The Geas make the
> speaking or the gestures unmistakable as anything but spellcasting.

I agree with Ray on this one. The movements and such may be small, but I
would still say you need some sort of muscular control to cast spells I
suppose that technically by the book you could cast spells while under the
effects of the paralyze spell discussed previously, but I wouldn't allow it
as GM as long as you were in your meat bod. Natural paralization is a
different story because you have time to adapt to your new situation.

"shields up Captain"

-Caric

"One cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."
-Albert Einstein

From:	Gossamer <kajohnson@*******.TEC.WI.US>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Tue, 22 Apr 1997 14:19:14 -0500

Message no. 6 >I agree with Ray on this one. The movements and such may be
>small, but I would still say you need some sort of muscular
>control to cast spells I suppose that technically by the book
>you could cast spells while under the effects of the paralyze
>spell discussed previously, but I wouldn't allow it as GM as
>long as you were in your meat bod. Natural paralization is a
>different story because you have time to adapt to your new
>situation.

I have only one reason to disagree with Ray and Caric here...

A mage, Shapechanged into a critter, can cast spells just fine
as long as he/she is not limited by geas of that would proscribe
it (like gestures or incantations)...

Comments?

Gossamer, who wonders if a Transform or Shapechange spell can
be used to change the gender of the target as well as the
species... He want's to Transform his latest opponent into
a female cat in heat and then take the spell off after...

From:	Denzil Kruse <dkruse@***.AZ05.BULL.COM>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Tue, 22 Apr 1997 13:09:00 MST

Message no. 7 >I agree with Ray on this one. The movements and such may be small, but I
>would still say you need some sort of muscular control to cast spells I
>suppose that technically by the book you could cast spells while under the
>effects of the paralyze spell discussed previously, but I wouldn't allow it
>as GM as long as you were in your meat bod. Natural paralization is a
>different story because you have time to adapt to your new situation.

In the adventure Harlequinn, it talks about a mage getting tied up, but then
they blindfold him so he can't cast spells. So I assume that without the
blindfold, they could still cast spells even though they are tied up.
Course, modules have been wrong before (an adventure in shadows of the
underworld implies a hermitic circle is always active as an astral barrier).

Denzil Kruse
d.kruse@****.com

From:	Justin Pinnow <vanyel@*******.NET>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Tue, 22 Apr 1997 18:19:02 -0400

Message no. 8 On Date: Tuesday, April 22, 1997 at 4:09 PM Denzil Kruse wrote:

> >I agree with Ray on this one. The movements and such may be small, but
I
> >would still say you need some sort of muscular control to cast spells I
> >suppose that technically by the book you could cast spells while under
the
> >effects of the paralyze spell discussed previously, but I wouldn't allow
it
> >as GM as long as you were in your meat bod. Natural paralization is a
> >different story because you have time to adapt to your new situation.

> In the adventure Harlequinn, it talks about a mage getting tied up, but
then
> they blindfold him so he can't cast spells. So I assume that without the
> blindfold, they could still cast spells even though they are tied up.
> Course, modules have been wrong before (an adventure in shadows of the
> underworld implies a hermitic circle is always active as an astral
barrier).

Loki made a good point in his post. If gesturing, uttering a word or two,
etc. were required to cast a spell, what are geasa for? A geas requires
you to speak a word or two or utter a quick phrase, etc. to cast a spell.
And remember, it will be a very *quick* phrase or gesure, just a word or
two, or a flick of the wrist. After all, in combat time, you can only
speak a word or two a phase...and your complex action of casting a spell
happens all in one phase....but I digress.

My point is that since all that is required to fulfill a gesture or
incantation geas, etc. is a quick word or gesture, then a quick word and/or
gesure should NOT be required to a magician without said geasa. Thus, in
the world of Shadowrun, looks *can* kill.

> Denzil Kruse
> d.kruse@****.com

Justin :)

From:	"MARTIN E. GOTTHARD" <s457033@*******.GU.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 1997 11:07:37 +1000

Message no. 9 > >I agree with Ray on this one. The movements and such may be
> >small, but I would still say you need some sort of muscular
> >control to cast spells I suppose that technically by the book
> >you could cast spells while under the effects of the paralyze
> >spell discussed previously, but I wouldn't allow it as GM as
> >long as you were in your meat bod. Natural paralization is a
> >different story because you have time to adapt to your new
> >situation.
>
> I have only one reason to disagree with Ray and Caric here...
>
> A mage, Shapechanged into a critter, can cast spells just fine
> as long as he/she is not limited by geas of that would proscribe
> it (like gestures or incantations)...
>
> Comments?
>
I was under the opinion that an observer could see the astral reflection
of the spell as the caster froms and releases it... Much like for a
spirit. It says somewhere in the rules that you don't need to make *any*
gestures, except if you have a geas.

> Gossamer, who wonders if a Transform or Shapechange spell can
> be used to change the gender of the target as well as the
> species... He want's to Transform his latest opponent into
> a female cat in heat and then take the spell off after...
>
Nasty. Turn him into a poodle and let a German shepherd at him/her.

Bleach

From:	"MARTIN E. GOTTHARD" <s457033@*******.GU.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 1997 11:09:28 +1000

Message no. 10 > In the adventure Harlequinn, it talks about a mage getting tied up, but then
> they blindfold him so he can't cast spells. So I assume that without the
> blindfold, they could still cast spells even though they are tied up.
> Course, modules have been wrong before (an adventure in shadows of the
> underworld implies a hermitic circle is always active as an astral barrier).
>
True, too.... A mage hood is to stop a mage from casting, because he
can't hit what he can't see.

Also, somewhere in the rules is says that a hermetic circle or medicine
lodge acts as a barrier equal to its Rating when the owner is inside it.

Bleach

From:	Ray & Tamara <macey@*******.COM.AU>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 1997 13:43:36 +1000

Message no. 11 > >I agree with Ray on this one. The movements and such may be small, but
I
> >would still say you need some sort of muscular control to cast spells I
> >suppose that technically by the book you could cast spells while under
the
> >effects of the paralyze spell discussed previously, but I wouldn't allow
it
> >as GM as long as you were in your meat bod. Natural paralization is a
> >different story because you have time to adapt to your new situation.
>
> In the adventure Harlequinn, it talks about a mage getting tied up, but
then
> they blindfold him so he can't cast spells. So I assume that without the
> blindfold, they could still cast spells even though they are tied up.
> Course, modules have been wrong before (an adventure in shadows of the
> underworld implies a hermitic circle is always active as an astral
barrier).

Even though I said that it requires some movement or speaking, I still
think a mage can cast a spell providing he can see his target and he can
move a little bit, or speak. He could still cast even if he was tied up.
The only reason I made that point is that, as far as I'm concerned, the
test to notice spellcasting is noticing the mage doing 'something'.

Ray.

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

EMAIL: macey@*******.com.au

From:	Ray & Tamara <macey@*******.COM.AU>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 1997 13:48:04 +1000

Message no. 12 > My point is that since all that is required to fulfill a gesture or
> incantation geas, etc. is a quick word or gesture, then a quick word
and/or
> gesure should NOT be required to a magician without said geasa. Thus, in
> the world of Shadowrun, looks *can* kill.

The whole thing is that a gesture Geas, or an incantation Geas is
unmistakable as anything but spellcasting. When casting a normal spell,
the slight movements are not automatically thought to be spellcasting,
hence the test to detect spellcasting.

Ray.

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

EMAIL: macey@*******.com.au

From:	Ray & Tamara <macey@*******.COM.AU>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 1997 13:45:35 +1000

Message no. 13 > >I agree with Ray on this one. The movements and such may be
> >small, but I would still say you need some sort of muscular
> >control to cast spells I suppose that technically by the book
> >you could cast spells while under the effects of the paralyze
> >spell discussed previously, but I wouldn't allow it as GM as
> >long as you were in your meat bod. Natural paralization is a
> >different story because you have time to adapt to your new
> >situation.
>
> I have only one reason to disagree with Ray and Caric here...
>
> A mage, Shapechanged into a critter, can cast spells just fine
> as long as he/she is not limited by geas of that would proscribe
> it (like gestures or incantations)...

I think that this would still work because, it really just requires that
the animal grunts, or tries to move or the like. I don't think that a
spell requires a certain set movement or speech to cast, just that you must
try and do one or the other.

Ray.

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

EMAIL: macey@*******.com.au

From:	Ray & Tamara <macey@*******.COM.AU>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 1997 13:49:47 +1000

Message no. 14 > I was under the opinion that an observer could see the astral reflection
> of the spell as the caster froms and releases it... Much like for a
> spirit. It says somewhere in the rules that you don't need to make *any*
> gestures, except if you have a geas.

Isn't that a separate test though. You can see a spell, and still not see
the spellcasting itself. I don't think that the rules say one way or the
other whether no gestures/speech etc, or just very little is needed.

Ray.

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

EMAIL: macey@*******.com.au

From:	Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 1997 10:58:37 +0000

Message no. 15 On 22 Apr 97 at 8:30, Caric wrote:
[snip movement needed to cast spells]
> I agree with Ray on this one. The movements and such may be small, but I
> would still say you need some sort of muscular control to cast spells I
> suppose that technically by the book you could cast spells while under the
> effects of the paralyze spell discussed previously, but I wouldn't allow it
> as GM as long as you were in your meat bod. Natural paralization is a
> different story because you have time to adapt to your new situation.

As per "NOTICING SPELLCASTING" (SRII, p. 132) the way to detect a
spell being cast depends of a) the power of the spell, and b) the
power (Magic Attribute) of the caster. The only place I remember where
gestures are used, is Grimoire, p.52, "Gesture Geas": "If he [the
magician] is tied up, handcuffed, paralyzed, or otherwise not free to
move his hands and arms, he breaks his geas." This implies strongly
one who doesn't have this geas can use sorcery even _when_ "tied up,
handcuffed, paralyzed, or otherwise not free to move his hands and
arms" IMHO.

On 23 Apr 97 at 13:43, Ray & Tamara wrote:
> Even though I said that it requires some movement or speaking, I still
> think a mage can cast a spell providing he can see his target and he
> can move a little bit, or speak. He could still cast even if he was
> tied up. The only reason I made that point is that, as far as I'm
> concerned, the test to notice spellcasting is noticing the mage doing
> 'something'.
But you are not supported by the rules that go after relative power of
the spell to the magician's. If the perception test was about gestures
or spoken words, it wouldn't change with the magician's Magic
Attribute, but remain constant.

Sascha
--
+---___---------+------------------------------------+------------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |I don't believe in love,|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@ |I never have, / I never |
| \___ __/ | Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.de |will, / I don't believe |
|==== \_/ ======|*Wearing hats is just a way of life*| in love / it's never |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me |worth the pain you feel |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----Queensryche-+

From:	Loki <daddyjim@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 1997 02:14:48 -0700

Message no. 16 ---Sascha Pabst wrote:
>
> But you are not supported by the rules that go after relative power
of
> the spell to the magician's. If the perception test was about
gestures
> or spoken words, it wouldn't change with the magician's Magic
> Attribute, but remain constant.
>
> Sascha

This is one of the better points made on this debate so far...

===

@>--,--'--- Loki <gamemstr@********.com>

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic."
- A. C. Clarke

Poisoned Elves: http://www.primenet.com/~gamemstr/
_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com

From:	Jose Vicente Mondejar Brell <jomonbre@***.UPV.ES>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 1997 11:38:36 +0000

Message no. 17 <Snip>
> Course, modules have been wrong before (an adventure in shadows of the
> underworld implies a hermitic circle is always active as an astral barrier).

[Maybe unnecessary but...] SPOILER! SPOILER!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Same implication in DNA/DOA in the meeting place at the Space Needle,
IIRC.
That's a tally of two... When shall we trigger the black IC? :]

(Uh... and sorry for the extra space for the spoiler, but I just
wanted to make it sure I didn't waste the fun for anyone)

--
Monde

From:	Jose Vicente Mondejar Brell <jomonbre@***.UPV.ES>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 1997 11:47:24 +0000

Message no. 18 > I agree with Ray on this one. The movements and such may be small, but I
> would still say you need some sort of muscular control to cast spells I
> suppose that technically by the book you could cast spells while under the
> effects of the paralyze spell discussed previously, but I wouldn't allow it
> as GM as long as you were in your meat bod. Natural paralization is a
> different story because you have time to adapt to your new situation.

I agree too. I think it is in the Grimoire II where it says that a
mage has to adapt his own mood to the spellcasting. Something like
being angry for casting a fireball and so. And I don't think you can
free your mood without somatic moves, even though they're minor.

My own .2 nuyens

--
Monde

From:	Jose Vicente Mondejar Brell <jomonbre@***.UPV.ES>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 1997 11:58:23 +0000

Message no. 19 > I have only one reason to disagree with Ray and Caric here...
>
> A mage, Shapechanged into a critter, can cast spells just fine
> as long as he/she is not limited by geas of that would proscribe
> it (like gestures or incantations)...
>
> Comments?

Sure. As I've said in an earlier posting, I think that spellcasting
requires somatic moves to relieve the mood required for spellcasting,
even though I don't take this moves to be "fixed" like gestures or
incantations. So a mage can cast spells when in any shape as long as
he could see the target.

Sorry if I've used wrong grammar here, my English is getting worse
and worse... I think it needs some practice :)

> Gossamer, who wonders if a Transform or Shapechange spell can
> be used to change the gender of the target as well as the
> species... He want's to Transform his latest opponent into
> a female cat in heat and then take the spell off after...

Hmmm.... that reminds me when my transmuter in a **&* campaign cast
polymorph to oponents and turned them into living humanoid-sized
chess figurines :)

--
Monde, who once enjoyed playing chess

From:	Gossamer <jrsnyder@********.WISC.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 1997 07:01:34 -0500

Message no. 20 >> I have only one reason to disagree with Ray and Caric here...
>>
>> A mage, Shapechanged into a critter, can cast spells just fine
>> as long as he/she is not limited by geas of that would proscribe
>> it (like gestures or incantations)...
>
>I think that this would still work because, it really just requires
>that the animal grunts, or tries to move or the like. I don't think
>that a spell requires a certain set movement or speech to cast, just
>that you must try and do one or the other.

Ok, now see, here's my problem... I can find no reason to be swayed
by your propositions. Are we coming to the point where we just
don't agree on the basis for each other's arguements? I think so.
You want so strongly to believe that you need some kind of movement
for spell casting even though there's no evidence to support it,
and I want to believe that you don't even though I can't back it
up either... And the worst part is that I have such a preconception
about how I see things that this last arguement of yours just
smacked me as horribly silly and grasping at straws. I wanted to
THWAPPP you with my new Model 3 Carp Flinger, but then I took a
step back, and asked myself to look at it from your side. I did,
and while I still can't agree even in the slightest with you, I
can't find any reason out there to find you position ridiculous.
I mean, we're all brought up with the 'tie up the mage so she
can't twittle her fingers and cast a spell' mentality, but after
reading all the SR literature I can, I just can't see anywhere
that would support your arguement...

So, answer for me these questions, which are the basis of my
position, please. And I'm sorry if you've done so before.

1. Why is the perception of spellcasting dependent on the
Force of the spell?
A: For me, it's because a higher Force rating, you get a more
visible Astral spillage like with an elemental...

2. Why is the speaking you can't do as part of a geas different
from the normal speaking you can allegedly fake while
Shapechanged?

A: For me, because no speaking is necessary, spells work *exactly*
the same way in human for as they do in critter form...

3 I can Shapechange into a Carp, and still cast spells, yet I
cannot speak at all, and the Noticing Spellcasting rules
are not affected either... Can you explain this easily?

A: For me, it explains very easily. Without the need for sounds
(or movement) to cast spells, it doesn't matter what shape
I take to cast my spells. I could be and earthworm and still
cast spells. And as per the rules, the only time a mage
cannot cast spells is if she has a geas (or geasa) which
are precluded by the form she has aquired.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that I feel that I'm correct on
this one because I have to do *no* mental gymnastics to fit my
viewpoint into the rules whereas you certainly do. I have no
other basis for my view than that. You certainly have magick
wielding tradition on your side, but I don't feel that that
is worth much in the SR universe.

Thanks for your time and understanding,

Gossamer

From:	Shaun Sides <arch@****.ABTS.NET>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 1997 08:11:59 -0500

Message no. 21 Date: 22 Apr 97 Time: 8:30
Subject: Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re:

TO: Caric

> I agree with Ray on this one. The movements and such may be small,
> but I would still say you need some sort of muscular control to cast
> spells I suppose that technically by the book you could cast spells
> while under the effects of the paralyze spell discussed previously,
> but I wouldn't allow it as GM as long as you were in your meat bod.
> Natural paralization is a different story because you have time to
> adapt to your new situation.

I've always viewed spellcasting in SR as something which, while it
doesn't require speech or gestures, may involve some most of the
time. Watch a person while s/he reads. Reading requires no movement
or sounds, but a person who's reading will still frequently make some
of both, unless specifically trying not to. I see spellcasting as
about the same.

a chaoidh teabadaich,

Shaun Sides
arch@****.net
http://www.abts.net/~arch

Hello. My name is Inego Montoya.
You killed my father.
Prepare to die.
-- Inego, from The Princess Bride

From:	Grendel <grendel@*****.NET>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Mon, 21 Apr 1997 08:24:29 -0400

Message no. 22 Ray Said:
>
>Even though I said that it requires some movement or speaking, I still
>think a mage can cast a spell providing he can see his target and he can
>move a little bit, or speak. He could still cast even if he was tied up.
>The only reason I made that point is that, as far as I'm concerned, the
>test to notice spellcasting is noticing the mage doing 'something'.

I think the spellcaster must move AND speak. He must at least point his
target (if the spell involves targeting) and name the spell he wants to do.
If not why Lone Star uses a Magemask (p. 102). It make the mage unable to
speak and see and they tie his hands not to move. In addition, there's a
white noise generator so that the mage can't concentrate. If all this
gesture/speaking was not involved in casting, Lone Star would not have taken
this method to arrest mages and shamans. I think.

____________________________________________________________________________
________
Grendel Khan

Sam:"So where'd you park the car, Max?"
Max:"I don't know. I couldn't see over the wheel."
Sam:"That's okay. I think I can smell it."
____________________________________________________________________________
________

From:	Ray & Tamara <macey@*******.COM.AU>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 1997 23:16:32 +1000

Message no. 23 > > Even though I said that it requires some movement or speaking, I still
> > think a mage can cast a spell providing he can see his target and he
> > can move a little bit, or speak. He could still cast even if he was
> > tied up. The only reason I made that point is that, as far as I'm
> > concerned, the test to notice spellcasting is noticing the mage doing
> > 'something'.
> But you are not supported by the rules that go after relative power of
> the spell to the magician's. If the perception test was about gestures
> or spoken words, it wouldn't change with the magician's Magic
> Attribute, but remain constant.

As I said in one of my other posts, it says in the SRII book that some
physical activity is required to cast a spell, but not much. You can still
do it if you are tied up, but you have to be able to do something, ie move
a little bit, open your mouth or whatever. You might even just screw your
face up in concentration or something. Whatever it is though, it's
physical, and I think that that is what the noticing spellcasting test is
trying to perceive.

Ray.

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

EMAIL: macey@*******.com.au

From:	Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 1997 14:06:50 GMT

Message no. 24 Gossamer writes

Well explained. This thread had been suffering from too much 'here my
comment.....' 'yes and wheres the backup.....'.

>
> So, answer for me these questions, which are the basis of my
> position, please. And I'm sorry if you've done so before.
>
> 1. Why is the perception of spellcasting dependent on the
> Force of the spell?
> A: For me, it's because a higher Force rating, you get a more
> visible Astral spillage like with an elemental...
>
In the case of Shamen the 'taking on features of thier totem' for
mages you may see some flicker of energy about the caster etc. The
more powerful the spell the more trouble the caster will have
channelling the energy so the less of their effort can go into
controlling side effects that may give them away.

> 2. Why is the speaking you can't do as part of a geas different
> from the normal speaking you can allegedly fake while
> Shapechanged?
>
> A: For me, because no speaking is necessary, spells work *exactly*
> the same way in human for as they do in critter form...
>
I would tend to suggest that magcians would normally be inclined to
speak, chant and gesture (Shamen may prefer to dance even) when
casting but that this is more because on an every day basis it helps
them get in the mood but it is not a vital part of the process and
can be suppressed if required.
A mage casting in the safety of his home may well fling his arms
about and chant out loud for a force 1 spell, simply because it feels
better, out on a run though the same mage might be able to do it for
a glnce at his target and a flicker of light in his eyes.

> 3 I can Shapechange into a Carp, and still cast spells,
> yet I
> cannot speak at all, and the Noticing Spellcasting rules
> are not affected either... Can you explain this easily?
>
> A: For me, it explains very easily. Without the need for sounds
> (or movement) to cast spells, it doesn't matter what shape
> I take to cast my spells. I could be and earthworm and still
> cast spells. And as per the rules, the only time a mage
> cannot cast spells is if she has a geas (or geasa) which
> are precluded by the form she has aquired.
>
You are correct. As i suggest above the magician might decide to do
this sort of thing when he/she can but it is not required.

When i have had magicians trying to cast tied up and the like i have
generally imposed a penalty simply because its more difficult to
concentrate on complex mental gymnastics if your pain receptors would
prefer you to do something about the ropes busy cutting into your
wrists. the penalty should be moderate however and any for any broken
Geas should be imposed as well.

> So, I guess what I'm saying is that I feel that I'm correct on
> this one because I have to do *no* mental gymnastics to fit my
> viewpoint into the rules whereas you certainly do. I have no
> other basis for my view than that. You certainly have magick
> wielding tradition on your side, but I don't feel that that
> is worth much in the SR universe.
>
> Thanks for your time and understanding,
>
> Gossamer
>

Mark

From:	Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 1997 08:58:17 +0000

Message no. 25 On 23 Apr 97 at 7:01, Gossamer wrote:
<snipped good points>
> So, I guess what I'm saying is that I feel that I'm correct on
> this one because I have to do *no* mental gymnastics to fit my
> viewpoint into the rules whereas you certainly do. I have no
> other basis for my view than that. You certainly have magick
> wielding tradition on your side, but I don't feel that that
> is worth much in the SR universe.

After following this thread, I tend to agree with Gossamer and the
camp that says that no verbal and somantic components are required
for spellcasting, for the reasons he stated. But it does
raise one question in my mind: then how does hermeticism differ from
shamanism? Don't shamans have to dance, or sing, or something? I can
see how a hermetic mage could just recite the spell formula in his
head, but what does a shaman do?

#@&%*===========================================================*%&@#
# DREKHEAD - drekhead@***.net, drekhead@***.com - Tim Kerby #
#@&%*===========================================================*%&@#
#@&%*===========================================================*%&@#
# --- http://users.aol.com/drekhead/home.html --- #
#@&%*===========================================================*%&@#
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot
stomping on a human face...forever. -George Orwell

From:	Gossamer <jrsnyder@********.WISC.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 1997 09:54:08 -0500

Message no. 26 >After following this thread, I tend to agree with Gossamer and the
>camp that says that no verbal and somantic components are required
>for spellcasting, for the reasons he stated.

Although Ray did bring up an excellent point to which I'd like
to respond first:

Ray says:
>I was just reading through the Magic Section of Second Edition and
>I found the following on page 127, under Sorcery. In the third
>paragraph, it says 'Some physical activity accompanies the spell...'.

It goes on to say that perhaps it's this or that or something else,
but it's there. And I have to acknowledge that Ray is right here
on this point. But as the rules say perhaps it's this or that or
perhaps it's a cold stare... the rules don't say what it is.

And I'd like to know why does it *have* to be *this* that is
noticed about spellcasting and not the luminous astral echos
that readily appear on the cover of the book(s) which is dependent
on the Force of the spell and the Magick attribute of the caster?

Do you have to stare harder with a higher Magick Attribute?

And now back to our show...

>But it does
>raise one question in my mind: then how does hermeticism differ
>from shamanism? Don't shamans have to dance, or sing, or
>something? I can see how a hermetic mage could just recite the
>spell formula in his head, but what does a shaman do?

My 2 newyen to follow:

I think the difference is philosophy, perception, and belief.
A heremtic believes he's manipulating the fabric of reality
when he casts a spell, and he is. A shaman believes she's
requesting the aid of her totem and receiving it, and she is.
Same end, different means, or the same means with different
point of view depending upon whom you talk to.

No, shamans do not have to sing or chant or anything, but
sometimes they do. What they need is to get in touch
with their totem, request aid, and have the totem respond.
This can be done easily in the Sixth World.

The heremtic draws the spell formula up from memory, impresses
his will upon it, and, through his abilities, sends it toward
it's target. The shaman contacts her totem through her
magickal powers (her link with that totem) and then together,
shaman and totem affect the magick.

Same destination, different paths.

That's how I see it anyway,

Gossamer

From:	Caric <caric@********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 1997 09:19:41 -0700

Message no. 27 <snip-a-ling-a-ding-dong>

It wasn't actually my post you responded to, but I was part of that house
of the arguement so bear with my response if you will.

> So, answer for me these questions, which are the basis of my
> position, please. And I'm sorry if you've done so before.
>
> 1. Why is the perception of spellcasting dependent on the
> Force of the spell?
> A: For me, it's because a higher Force rating, you get a more
> visible Astral spillage like with an elemental...

I agree with you...that may have been unclear...a force six spell is going
to have a physical manifestation as it launches between you and your target
unless you are one bad ass mage.

> 2. Why is the speaking you can't do as part of a geas different
> from the normal speaking you can allegedly fake while
> Shapechanged?
>
> A: For me, because no speaking is necessary, spells work *exactly*
> the same way in human for as they do in critter form...

What I/we were getting at I believe is not so much that it is necessary as
part of the spell, but as part of the mood. If someone were to learn
manabolt with pointing at the target as something that they always do then
it stands to reason that when you cast manabolt in a fight that you would
point at the target. I highly doubt that all the mages and especially
shamans are running around Seattle and just standing there as they cast
spells with no expression on their faces and their arms at there side and
there mouth closed. I grant you that according to the rules it is very
possible and not related to whether the spell would be seen or noticed, but
I refuse to believe that mages don't gesture when they cast...they don't
HAVE to but they do.

> 3 I can Shapechange into a Carp, and still cast spells, yet I
> cannot speak at all, and the Noticing Spellcasting rules
> are not affected either... Can you explain this easily?
>
> A: For me, it explains very easily. Without the need for sounds
> (or movement) to cast spells, it doesn't matter what shape
> I take to cast my spells. I could be and earthworm and still
> cast spells. And as per the rules, the only time a mage
> cannot cast spells is if she has a geas (or geasa) which
> are precluded by the form she has aquired.

Again the spell noticing is based on the force and astral energies and has
nothing to do with movement or speaking I agree.

> So, I guess what I'm saying is that I feel that I'm correct on
> this one because I have to do *no* mental gymnastics to fit my
> viewpoint into the rules whereas you certainly do. I have no
> other basis for my view than that. You certainly have magick
> wielding tradition on your side, but I don't feel that that
> is worth much in the SR universe.

Granted your viewpoint fits snuggly in the rules system, but can you just
stand there and shoot a gun without moving?...Then why would you be able to
hurl an acid stream?

> Thanks for your time and understanding,

Ditto. =)

-Caric

"One cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."
-Albert Einstein -Caric

"One cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."
-Albert Einstein

From:	Caric <caric@********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 1997 08:36:17 -0700

Message no. 28 > > A mage, Shapechanged into a critter, can cast spells just fine
> > as long as he/she is not limited by geas of that would proscribe
> > it (like gestures or incantations)...
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> I was under the opinion that an observer could see the astral reflection
> of the spell as the caster froms and releases it... Much like for a
> spirit. It says somewhere in the rules that you don't need to make *any*
> gestures, except if you have a geas.

I agree that the rules clearly state that there are no specific components
to spellcasting other LOS etc., but I would have a hard time believing
someone could chuck a spell without involuntarily or voluntarily using some
muscles I still say that paralyzation as a spell would leave the victim
thinking only of escape rather then "hey, I know i'll never move again, but
I can throw a hellblast at him" (I realize that they could move again, but
would you be rational under that situation?

-Caric

"One cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."
-Albert Einstein

From:	Caric <caric@********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 1997 09:27:06 -0700

Message no. 29 > As I said in one of my other posts, it says in the SRII book that some
> physical activity is required to cast a spell, but not much. You can
still
> do it if you are tied up, but you have to be able to do something, ie
move
> a little bit, open your mouth or whatever. You might even just screw
your
> face up in concentration or something. Whatever it is though, it's
> physical, and I think that that is what the noticing spellcasting test is
> trying to perceive.
>
> Ray.

I'm totally with you up until that last sentance Ray. I see the noticing
as being a combination of the astral echo and the mage standing there
pointing at you.

-Caric

"One cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."
-Albert Einstein

From:	"Faux Pas (Thomas)" <thomas@*******.COM>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 1997 13:48:49 -0500

Message no. 30 On 08:24 AM 4/21/97 -0400, Grendel typed:
>I think the spellcaster must move AND speak. He must at least point his
>target (if the spell involves targeting) and name the spell he wants to do.
>If not why Lone Star uses a Magemask (p. 102). It make the mage unable to
>speak and see and they tie his hands not to move.

That's because there are some spells that are Touch based.

>In addition, there's a
>white noise generator so that the mage can't concentrate. If all this
>gesture/speaking was not involved in casting, Lone Star would not have taken
>this method to arrest mages and shamans. I think.

Magic isn't well understood in 2058 (or in 1997), and this is probably Lone
Star's attempt at being overcautious.

-Thomas Deeny, Evil GM
Fun, Fun, Fun at: http://telltale.hart.org
The Digital Mage's archive: http://telltale.hart.org/digitalmage/intro.html

"Maybe, just maybe, my boys can keep 'em from gettin' the book. And maybe
I'm a Chinese jet pilot."
-Ash, _[Bruce Campbell vs.] The Army Of Darkness_

From:	Brett Borger <SwiftOne@***.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 1997 23:51:42 GMT

Message no. 31 >Gossamer, who wonders if a Transform or Shapechange spell can
>be used to change the gender of the target as well as the
>species... He want's to Transform his latest opponent into
>a female cat in heat and then take the spell off after...

I'd say Gender Yes. Putting them in heat would be a different spell though.

-=SwiftOne=-
(who happens to have a female player who
1) is a Cat Shaman
2) Knows Cat Form
3) knows an Arousal spell
)

From:	Brett Borger <SwiftOne@***.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 1997 23:51:44 GMT

Message no. 32 >After following this thread, I tend to agree with Gossamer and the
>camp that says that no verbal and somantic components are required
>for spellcasting, for the reasons he stated. But it does
>raise one question in my mind: then how does hermeticism differ from
>shamanism? Don't shamans have to dance, or sing, or something? I can
>see how a hermetic mage could just recite the spell formula in his
>head, but what does a shaman do?

I always rule this as a role-playing thing....and enforce it.

Way of the Shaman, grimoire II, is required reading for my shamans.

Basically (I'm of the no action necessary, but often used anyway camp) the
difference is attitude. Just as a hermetic can look at you and give you a
whammy, so can a shaman. Just as the hermetic tends to gesture, so does the
shaman. THe heremetic gestures with an orderly meaning....the shaman calls
on his totem, gestures as appropriate for the moment, or does some other
artistic release.

Heremeticism is planned, logical. Shamanism is artistic, spontaneous.

But whether it is a scientifically designed can or a decorated earthenware
bowl, they both hold water.

-=SwiftOne=-

From:	Gossamer <jrsnyder@********.WISC.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 1997 19:47:12 -0500

Message no. 33 >>He want's to Transform his latest opponent into
>>a female cat in heat and then take the spell off after...
>
>I'd say Gender Yes. Putting them in heat would be a different
>spell though.

Ok, so I'd do the Transform, then keep the little she demon
around 'til nature takes it's course... Of course I'd have to
Quicken it then... Maybe I'd make a trideo for him for when
he's back to normal... Maybe I'll just turn him into a tree
and plant him in a park somewhere for the dog shamans, pigeon
shamans, and squirrel shamans. I'm such a philanthropist.

>-=SwiftOne=-
>(who happens to have a female player who
>1) is a Cat Shaman
Love them kitties!

>2) Knows Cat Form
I like this spell, but I tend to go with the more general ones.

>3) knows an Arousal spell

I'm not familiar with Arousal, where's it from? And how do I
talk my current GM into letting me learn it. Maybe then I
could get a date? If you have the specs, could you send it
to me by private email...

Gossamer

From:	Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Thu, 24 Apr 1997 05:28:12 +0000

Message no. 34 On 21 Apr 97 at 8:24, Grendel wrote:
[snip]
> I think the spellcaster must move AND speak. He must at least point his
> target (if the spell involves targeting) and name the spell he wants to do.
> If not why Lone Star uses a Magemask (p. 102). It make the mage unable to
> speak and see and they tie his hands not to move. In addition, there's a
> white noise generator so that the mage can't concentrate. If all this
> gesture/speaking was not involved in casting, Lone Star would not have taken
> this method to arrest mages and shamans. I think.
You think AD&D here. A magemasks primary use is to interrupt any LOS.
Secondary, it disturbes the magicians concentration (no, concentration
and speaking are not equivalent - one can do one without the other,
I've been told *grin*). As for cuffing magicians - I don't think cops
arresting people in 1997 fear they'd be target of a fireball, and they
still cuff people the arrest. Strange behaviour, don't you think?

Remains the restraint that prevents speaking. Well, face it: Everyone
who looses two points of magic (from cyberware, surgery, wounds,
whatever) has to get a geas. Speaking is one of the easiest, and so
probably several of the existing magicians have this as a geas. And
probably many people will follow the believe magicians will have to
speak (centering comes to mind) to cast spells (as you do, although
there is no backing in the rules :-) so this is an additional security
feature.

On 23 Apr 97 at 2:14, Loki wrote:
[snip my comment about relative power]
> This is one of the better points made on this debate so far...
*bows* Thanks a lot :-)

On 23 Apr 97 at 11:47, Jose Vicente Mondejar Brell wrote:
[snip]
> I agree too. I think it is in the Grimoire II where it says that a
> mage has to adapt his own mood to the spellcasting. Something like
> being angry for casting a fireball and so. And I don't think you can
> free your mood without somatic moves, even though they're minor.
It's Grimoire, p. 110. "Spellcasting is a matter of intention and
mental control." (note that word: mental!) Later: "It has been said that
the emotional energy needed to cast a spell must be as strong as that
needed to perform the action physically."

This would mean you must have the intention to kill to cast a deadly
spell - it does not mean you will have to move "as if" you were killing
your victim.

Sascha
--
+---___---------+------------------------------------+------------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |I don't believe in love,|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@ |I never have, / I never |
| \___ __/ | Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.de |will, / I don't believe |
|==== \_/ ======|*Wearing hats is just a way of life*| in love / it's never |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me |worth the pain you feel |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----Queensryche-+

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Thu, 24 Apr 1997 12:25:37 +0100

Message no. 35 Caric said on 9:19/23 Apr 97...

> > 1. Why is the perception of spellcasting dependent on the
> > Force of the spell?
> > A: For me, it's because a higher Force rating, you get a more
> > visible Astral spillage like with an elemental...
>
> I agree with you...that may have been unclear...a force six spell is going
> to have a physical manifestation as it launches between you and your target
> unless you are one bad ass mage.

Only manipulation spells have physical manifestations, as you call it. All
other spells travel from caster to target through astral space only, but
manipulations also travel along the same track in the physical plane (SRII
page 150).

> What I/we were getting at I believe is not so much that it is necessary as
> part of the spell, but as part of the mood. If someone were to learn
> manabolt with pointing at the target as something that they always do then
> it stands to reason that when you cast manabolt in a fight that you would
> point at the target.

Sort of a self-imposed, limited geas... Sounds plausible, but it's one
they should be able to shed instantly, as soon as they discover it's not
_required_ to point to the target.

> I highly doubt that all the mages and especially shamans are running
> around Seattle and just standing there as they cast spells with no
> expression on their faces and their arms at there side and there mouth
> closed. I grant you that according to the rules it is very possible and
> not related to whether the spell would be seen or noticed, but I refuse
> to believe that mages don't gesture when they cast...they don't HAVE to
> but they do.

Applying Steve Kenson's house rule of +1 TN if the magician can't/won't
move sounds like a good idea to deal with this.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I'm happy just to watch them all and laugh.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Thu, 24 Apr 1997 12:25:37 +0100

Message no. 36 Drekhead said on 8:58/23 Apr 97...

> But it does raise one question in my mind: then how does hermeticism
> differ from shamanism? Don't shamans have to dance, or sing, or
> something? I can see how a hermetic mage could just recite the spell
> formula in his head, but what does a shaman do?

Shamans sing and dance if they get the opportunity. They don't have to,
because the spell will work just as well if they stand (nearly?)
motionless, but part of what they and/or their totems _are_, says they
should sing and dance.
Theyr body (esp. their face) also starts to resemble their totem animal,
which gets more visible with higher-Force spells.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I'm happy just to watch them all and laugh.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

From:	Shaun Sides <arch@****.ABTS.NET>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Thu, 24 Apr 1997 08:00:18 -0500

Message no. 37 Date: 23 Apr 97 Time: 8:58
Subject: Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re:

TO: Drekhead

> shamanism? Don't shamans have to dance, or sing, or something? I can
> see how a hermetic mage could just recite the spell formula in his
> head, but what does a shaman do?

I see the biggest differences between the two "schools" surfacing in
the methods for ritual magic, rather than in the fast and furious
stuff.

a chaoidh teabadaich,

Shaun Sides
arch@****.net
http://www.abts.net/~arch

Thought for the day:
Bagpipes (n): an octopus wearing a kilt.

From:	Ray & Tamara <macey@*******.COM.AU>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Thu, 24 Apr 1997 17:41:03 +1000

Message no. 38 > raise one question in my mind: then how does hermeticism differ from
> shamanism? Don't shamans have to dance, or sing, or something? I can
> see how a hermetic mage could just recite the spell formula in his
> head, but what does a shaman do?

SRII says that a mage is meant to do some physical movements, but not many.
It says that shamans have to dance and sing to cast their spells. But a
shaman can whisper his spell from an alley doorway if he wants to, he just
has to feel the right level of emotion for whatever it is he's about to do.

Ray.

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

EMAIL: macey@*******.com.au

From:	Ray & Tamara <macey@*******.COM.AU>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Thu, 24 Apr 1997 17:00:17 +1000

Message no. 39 > > Even though I said that it requires some movement or speaking, I still
> > think a mage can cast a spell providing he can see his target and he
> > can move a little bit, or speak. He could still cast even if he was
> > tied up. The only reason I made that point is that, as far as I'm
> > concerned, the test to notice spellcasting is noticing the mage doing
> > 'something'.
> But you are not supported by the rules that go after relative power of
> the spell to the magician's. If the perception test was about gestures
> or spoken words, it wouldn't change with the magician's Magic
> Attribute, but remain constant.

Not if higher force spells require that the mage concentrate's harder, and
has to make slightly more dramatic moves or something.

Ray.

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

EMAIL: macey@*******.com.au

From:	Ray & Tamara <macey@*******.COM.AU>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Thu, 24 Apr 1997 17:17:54 +1000

Message no. 40 > Ok, now see, here's my problem... I can find no reason to be swayed
> by your propositions. Are we coming to the point where we just
> don't agree on the basis for each other's arguements? I think so.

Probably so.

> reading all the SR literature I can, I just can't see anywhere
> that would support your arguement...

In the SRII book. Page 127. "Some physical activity accompanies the
spell".

> So, answer for me these questions, which are the basis of my
> position, please. And I'm sorry if you've done so before.
>
> 1. Why is the perception of spellcasting dependent on the
> Force of the spell?
> A: For me, it's because a higher Force rating, you get a more
> visible Astral spillage like with an elemental...

Again, I don't really know an answer to this one. Mayhaps as the force
gets higher, the physical activity required becomes larger as well. This
is the one thing that doesn't really support my argument.

> 2. Why is the speaking you can't do as part of a geas different
> from the normal speaking you can allegedly fake while
> Shapechanged?
>
> A: For me, because no speaking is necessary, spells work *exactly*
> the same way in human for as they do in critter form...

As far as I know anyway, there is some physical activity required to cast
the spell. Doesn't matter what it is really, just that the mage can't
stand stock still at attention and cast away. So whatever the activity is
in animal form, it just has to be there, it doesn't really matter exactly
what it is. It doesn't have to be speaking, it just CAN be. If you get an
incantation Geas, it HAS to be speaking (although other physical activity
can still occur), and hence you can't cast spells in animal form with this
Geas.

> 3 I can Shapechange into a Carp, and still cast spells, yet I
> cannot speak at all, and the Noticing Spellcasting rules
> are not affected either... Can you explain this easily?
>
> A: For me, it explains very easily. Without the need for sounds

This brings up a good point. There is no sound required. The mage may
just mouth a word, or point.

> (or movement) to cast spells, it doesn't matter what shape
> I take to cast my spells. I could be and earthworm and still
> cast spells. And as per the rules, the only time a mage
> cannot cast spells is if she has a geas (or geasa) which
> are precluded by the form she has aquired.

There is nor real saying whether or not the noticing spellcasting rules are
affected. The book does not say that you are any harder to detect if you
turn into a cat and try and stealth your way into somewhere, but I'm
guessing that there would be some modifier or other. It's the same with
noticing spellcasting. the mage just has to do something physical. Being
a fish would (as far as I'm concerned), not affect his spellcasting
(unless he has a Geasa), but I'd make it harder for someone to notice that
the mage is casting it.

> So, I guess what I'm saying is that I feel that I'm correct on
> this one because I have to do *no* mental gymnastics to fit my
> viewpoint into the rules whereas you certainly do. I have no

I have no problem fitting the rules to my veiwpoint, and I am even backed
up by the rules in the instance I gave above. The only gymnastics involved
are when I am in a rush and blurt out my points without making sure they
make sense. Then people may think that I'm beating around the bush, and
not making any real arguments. The only thing that sort of disagrees with
me is the TN determination for the noticing spellcasting test.

> Thanks for your time and understanding,

No problems. Thanks for not bringing out the carp, as that would have
upset me no end. As you said, we both think we are correct, and hopefully
we can sort this out or agree to disagree.

Ray.

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

EMAIL: macey@*******.com.au

From:	Ray & Tamara <macey@*******.COM.AU>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Thu, 24 Apr 1997 17:19:09 +1000

Message no. 41 > If not why Lone Star uses a Magemask (p. 102). It make the mage unable to
> speak and see and they tie his hands not to move. In addition, there's a
> white noise generator so that the mage can't concentrate. If all this
> gesture/speaking was not involved in casting, Lone Star would not have
taken
> this method to arrest mages and shamans. I think.

This is a very good point that I hadn't thought of. Take note people.

Ray.

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

EMAIL: macey@*******.com.au

From:	Ray & Tamara <macey@*******.COM.AU>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Thu, 24 Apr 1997 17:50:10 +1000

Message no. 42 > > face up in concentration or something. Whatever it is though, it's
> > physical, and I think that that is what the noticing spellcasting test
is
> > trying to perceive.
> >
> > Ray.
>
> I'm totally with you up until that last sentance Ray. I see the noticing
> as being a combination of the astral echo and the mage standing there
> pointing at you.

I'm starting to think that you are right on this. I thought that they were
two test, but it does make more sense that they are wrapped into one.

Ray.

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

EMAIL: macey@*******.com.au

From:	Ray & Tamara <macey@*******.COM.AU>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Thu, 24 Apr 1997 17:47:33 +1000

Message no. 43 Gossamer said:
> Ray says:
> >I was just reading through the Magic Section of Second Edition and
> >I found the following on page 127, under Sorcery. In the third
> >paragraph, it says 'Some physical activity accompanies the spell...'.
>
> It goes on to say that perhaps it's this or that or something else,
> but it's there. And I have to acknowledge that Ray is right here
> on this point. But as the rules say perhaps it's this or that or
> perhaps it's a cold stare... the rules don't say what it is.

This is correct. I don't mean that to sound condescending, but I wanted to
keep that part of your post in my reply. so I felt I had to say something.

> And I'd like to know why does it *have* to be *this* that is
> noticed about spellcasting and not the luminous astral echos
> that readily appear on the cover of the book(s) which is dependent
> on the Force of the spell and the Magick attribute of the caster?

I have always thought that noticing a spell, and noticing spellcasting are
two different things. However, I could not find any evidence to back me up
in this in the rules, so I have to admit that maybe Caric is right, and
although there are movements required, it is not actually what is being
noticed by the perception test. I think I came to my original stance,
because it says that with a Gesture or Incantation geas, the movements are
not mistakeable as anything other than spellcasting. This implied that the
normal movements were mistakeable for spellcasting, but only if the viewer
was with it at the time (ie passed perception test).

Ray.

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

EMAIL: macey@*******.com.au

From:	Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Thu, 24 Apr 1997 15:01:19 +0000

Message no. 44 On 23 Apr 97 at 8:58, Drekhead wrote:
[snip]
> But it does
> raise one question in my mind: then how does hermeticism differ from
> shamanism? Don't shamans have to dance, or sing, or something? I can
> see how a hermetic mage could just recite the spell formula in his
> head, but what does a shaman do?
Their view of life, magic and everything. While a mage recites a
formula, a shaman will trust in his totem and will the totem's will
happen through him. A shaman _requests_ the magic to happen, the mage
_expects_ it. In game stats, this doesn't differ, but from "the
feeling"... and of course there is the saying mages are just shamans
(shamen?) with the Totem Algebra... *shaman grin*

Sascha
--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |'The rich control |
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| The Government, |
| \___ __/ | | The Media, |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | And the Law!' |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | - Queensryche |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+

From:	Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Thu, 24 Apr 1997 08:54:50 +0000

Message no. 45 On 24 Apr 97 at 17:17, Ray & Tamara wrote:

> > reading all the SR literature I can, I just can't see anywhere
> > that would support your arguement...
>
> In the SRII book. Page 127. "Some physical activity accompanies
> the spell".

"Accompanies the spell" not the spellcasting. This is probably in
reference to the shimmering or air distortions that accompany a
spell.

#@&%*===========================================================*%&@#
# DREKHEAD - drekhead@***.net, drekhead@***.com - Tim Kerby #
#@&%*===========================================================*%&@#
#@&%*===========================================================*%&@#
# --- http://users.aol.com/drekhead/home.html --- #
#@&%*===========================================================*%&@#
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot
stomping on a human face...forever. -George Orwell

From:	MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Thu, 24 Apr 1997 09:28:43 -0400

Message no. 46 Drekhead once dared to write,

>On 24 Apr 97 at 17:17, Ray & Tamara wrote:
>> In the SRII book. Page 127. "Some physical activity accompanies
>> the spell".
>
>"Accompanies the spell" not the spellcasting. This is probably in
>reference to the shimmering or air distortions that accompany a
>spell.

Nope. Go back and read your book. It is about casting the spell and
not the spell itself. If everyone would reread the main rulebook on
Sorcery then this thread wouldn't have needed to be carried this long.

Thanks Ray for finding which page does mention it. Next time though
you might need to quote more of the book to avoid replies like Drekhead's.

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

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

From:	Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Thu, 24 Apr 1997 09:48:04 +0000

Message no. 47 On 24 Apr 97 at 9:28, MC23 wrote:

> Thanks Ray for finding which page does mention it. Next time
> though you might need to quote more of the book to avoid replies like
> Drekhead's.

Yea, some of us get our mail at work and don't have access to their
books, so I have to assume that when someone is quoting a book, they
are doing it completely and accurately. So much for that assumption.
Thanks for the tip, MC.

And BTW MC, from following this thread I have noticed many rules
discrepancies regarding this debate, but you have been relatively
quiet. I thought you championed the cause of crying foul at the FASA
inaccuracies? :)

#@&%*===========================================================*%&@#
# DREKHEAD - drekhead@***.net, drekhead@***.com - Tim Kerby #
#@&%*===========================================================*%&@#
#@&%*===========================================================*%&@#
# --- http://users.aol.com/drekhead/home.html --- #
#@&%*===========================================================*%&@#
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot
stomping on a human face...forever. -George Orwell

From:	MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Thu, 24 Apr 1997 10:41:47 -0400

Message no. 48 Drekhead once dared to write,

>Yea, some of us get our mail at work and don't have access to their
>books, so I have to assume that when someone is quoting a book, they
>are doing it completely and accurately. So much for that assumption.
>Thanks for the tip, MC.

Yeah, whenever I see a page referenced I keep quiet until I read the
passage myself. Then again I'm online from my studio at home so my
rulebooks are only at the other end of my home.

>And BTW MC, from following this thread I have noticed many rules
>discrepancies regarding this debate, but you have been relatively
>quiet. I thought you championed the cause of crying foul at the FASA
>inaccuracies? :)

This topic has only warranted half my attention (I've been rather
busy lately). Before Ray posted a page reference I recalled it going
either way like many other list members. BTW game balance is the cause I
prefer to champion not inaccuracies. Of course gross inaccuracies gets my
blood boiling too (and some people rumor that sunlight will do it as
well).

- MC23, who is the righter of wrongs and wronger of rights -

From:	Brett Borger <SwiftOne@***.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Thu, 24 Apr 1997 14:56:26 GMT

Message no. 49 >>3) knows an Arousal spell
>
>I'm not familiar with Arousal, where's it from? And how do I
>talk my current GM into letting me learn it. Maybe then I
>could get a date? If you have the specs, could you send it
>to me by private email...

Heck we'll just post it here for all to see. I based it off of
Influence....it's a specific suggestion, so it's one Drain level less.
Simple as that. I also created two variants: Chum and Leak. The first
makes the target believe you are an old friend worth a reasonable amout of
trust, and the second makes the target REALLY have to go to the bathroom.
Great for getting heavily armored guards to get out of the way....or at
least give them penalties to their perception rolls :)

-=SwiftOne=-

From:	Michael Broadwater <mbroadwa@*******.GLENAYRE.COM>
Subject:	Re: Noticing Spellcasting (was Re: Paralysis and Projection)
Date:	Tue, 22 Apr 1997 16:05:20 -0500

Message no. 50 At 01:09 PM 4/22/97 MST, Denzil Kruse wrote:
>>I agree with Ray on this one. The movements and such may be small, but I
>>would still say you need some sort of muscular control to cast spells I
>>suppose that technically by the book you could cast spells while under the
>>effects of the paralyze spell discussed previously, but I wouldn't allow it
>>as GM as long as you were in your meat bod. Natural paralization is a
>>different story because you have time to adapt to your new situation.
>
>In the adventure Harlequinn, it talks about a mage getting tied up, but then
>they blindfold him so he can't cast spells. So I assume that without the
>blindfold, they could still cast spells even though they are tied up.
> Course, modules have been wrong before (an adventure in shadows of the
>underworld implies a hermitic circle is always active as an astral barrier).
>
No, they don't just tie him up and gag him, they pump him so full of drugs
he can't remember his own name.

Mike Broadwater

"I don't mind if you don't like my manners. I don't like them much myself.
They're pretty bad. I grieve over them on long winter evenings."

Message no. 51 ---Jose Vicente Mondejar Brell wrote:
>
> > Actually DNA/DOA is a very early module. If released now, the
circles
> > at Eye of the Needle would be more along the lines of a ward. I
> > haven't run across the other instance yet. Have the books, but our
> > 6-week-old hasn't allowed much time for reading outside regular
game
> > preparation. :o)
>
> Yep, I thought the same thing. Just wondering if the second based
his
> idea on the first...
>
> Oh, and about your 6-week-old books, don't worry. Shadowbeat has
been
> on the shelve for more than a year, surviving in the dust :)
>
> --
> Monde

Actually, I meant we had a 6-week-old baby girl at home. :o)

===

@>--,--'--- Loki <gamemstr@********.com>

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic."
- A. C. Clarke

Poisoned Elves: http://www.primenet.com/~gamemstr/

_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com

Message no. 52 > I have always thought that noticing a spell, and noticing spellcasting
are
> two different things. However, I could not find any evidence to back me
up
> in this in the rules, so I have to admit that maybe Caric is right, and
> although there are movements required, it is not actually what is being
> noticed by the perception test. I think I came to my original stance,
> because it says that with a Gesture or Incantation geas, the movements
are
> not mistakeable as anything other than spellcasting. This implied that
the
> normal movements were mistakeable for spellcasting, but only if the
viewer
> was with it at the time (ie passed perception test).

Basically that's how I always viewed it. The person making the perception
test notices the astral echo, then sees Joe Shaman prancing around...he
does the math 2+2=6 and voila he knows that this guy cast the spell.

-Caric

p.s. Wow we've managed to completely avoid flames so far woo hoo! I do
miss a good thwapping though =)

"One cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."
-Albert Einstein

Message no. 53 <snip my own stuff>

> Only manipulation spells have physical manifestations, as you call it.
All
> other spells travel from caster to target through astral space only, but
> manipulations also travel along the same track in the physical plane
(SRII
> page 150).

I was unclear on this...the physical manifestation I was referring to is an
echo of the power traveling astrally...ie: a force 10 manabolt cast by a
shaman with magic att. of 2 would be obvious on the physical plane much in
the same way elementals and spirits can be seen but not seen. I may have
just made it more convoluted, but I hope you get the drift.

> > What I/we were getting at I believe is not so much that it is necessary
as
> > part of the spell, but as part of the mood. If someone were to learn
> > manabolt with pointing at the target as something that they always do
then
> > it stands to reason that when you cast manabolt in a fight that you
would
> > point at the target.
>
> Sort of a self-imposed, limited geas... Sounds plausible, but it's one
> they should be able to shed instantly, as soon as they discover it's not
> _required_ to point to the target.

I agree completely...I was just saying that spellcasting is an active
skill.

> > I highly doubt that all the mages and especially shamans are running
> > around Seattle and just standing there as they cast spells with no
> > expression on their faces and their arms at there side and there mouth
> > closed. I grant you that according to the rules it is very possible
and
> > not related to whether the spell would be seen or noticed, but I refuse
> > to believe that mages don't gesture when they cast...they don't HAVE to
> > but they do.
>
> Applying Steve Kenson's house rule of +1 TN if the magician can't/won't
> move sounds like a good idea to deal with this.

Agreed.
-Caric

"One cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."
-Albert Einstein

Message no. 54 > Heck we'll just post it here for all to see. I based it off of
> Influence....it's a specific suggestion, so it's one Drain level less.
> Simple as that. I also created two variants: Chum and Leak. The first
> makes the target believe you are an old friend worth a reasonable amout
of
> trust, and the second makes the target REALLY have to go to the bathroom.
> Great for getting heavily armored guards to get out of the way....or at
> least give them penalties to their perception rolls :)

2 words:

'Mental'

'Illness'

I like it.

So then, If I have Influence, I can use it instead, right?

Gossamer

Message no. 55 >I like it.
>
>So then, If I have Influence, I can use it instead, right?
>

I'd say yes. I created the specialized versions to reduce drain....sort of
like (Critter) form versus Shapechange.

-=SwiftOne=-

Message no. 56 > > Thanks Ray for finding which page does mention it. Next time
> > though you might need to quote more of the book to avoid replies like
> > Drekhead's.
>
> Yea, some of us get our mail at work and don't have access to their
> books, so I have to assume that when someone is quoting a book, they
> are doing it completely and accurately. So much for that assumption.

You're being a bit condescending aren't you. I gave the full sentence that
was relevant. Did you want the entire paragraph or something? I would
also assume that if someone is going to dispute a quote, they would check
it out, even if it means waiting until they get home, before they try and
argue it.

Ray.

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

EMAIL: macey@*******.com.au

Message no. 57 Ray once dared to write,

>You're being a bit condescending aren't you.

Uh, no. I thought I was being helpful. I was more worried about
offending Drekhead. I still don't know how I offended you.

>I gave the full sentence that was relevant.
>Did you want the entire paragraph or something?

What you quoted could be misinterpreted without further reading. I
was merely suggesting you quote enough so that there would be no further
conjecture afterwards. In this case it would have been one more sentence.

>I would also assume that if someone is going to dispute a quote, they
>would check it out, even if it means waiting until they get home, before
>they try and argue it.

It's not always the case as we've seen. And if the quote is from one
of the many sourcebooks that have been written then some list members
might not have it at all. The SRII rulebook is the only book that I would
be so casual about but there is still no guarantee that everyone has
their own copy.

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

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. 58 > Basically that's how I always viewed it. The person making the
perception
> test notices the astral echo, then sees Joe Shaman prancing around...he
> does the math 2+2=6 and voila he knows that this guy cast the spell.
>
> -Caric
>
> p.s. Wow we've managed to completely avoid flames so far woo hoo! I do
> miss a good thwapping though =)

I can say that I'm glad we missed the flame wars as well. I was almost
thwapped though. Now that would have started a flame war.

Ray.

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

EMAIL: macey@*******.com.au

Message no. 59 > >You're being a bit condescending aren't you.
>
> Uh, no. I thought I was being helpful. I was more worried about
> offending Drekhead. I still don't know how I offended you.

No you didn't. Drekhead said "so I have to assume that when someone is
quoting a book, they are doing it completely and accurately. So much for
that assumption." I thought that that was being condescending.

Sorry about the misunderstanding, you've been good to hash this out with.

> >I gave the full sentence that was relevant.
> >Did you want the entire paragraph or something?
>
> What you quoted could be misinterpreted without further reading. I
> was merely suggesting you quote enough so that there would be no further
> conjecture afterwards. In this case it would have been one more sentence.

Yeah, I know, it was just that I was annoyed by Drekhead's tone.

> It's not always the case as we've seen. And if the quote is from one
> of the many sourcebooks that have been written then some list members
> might not have it at all. The SRII rulebook is the only book that I would
> be so casual about but there is still no guarantee that everyone has
> their own copy.

It was from SRII though. But, as I said, I see the point, I was just
annoyed.

Ray.

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

EMAIL: macey@*******.com.au

Message no. 60 Caric said on 11:57/24 Apr 97...

> > Only manipulation spells have physical manifestations, as you call it. Any
> > other spells travel from caster to target through astral space only, but
> > manipulations also travel along the same track in the physical plane (SRII
> > page 150).
>
> I was unclear on this...the physical manifestation I was referring to is an
> echo of the power traveling astrally...ie: a force 10 manabolt cast by a
> shaman with magic att. of 2 would be obvious on the physical plane much in
> the same way elementals and spirits can be seen but not seen. I may have
> just made it more convoluted, but I hope you get the drift.

It's clear now; to this, the normal (Magic - Force) x2 rule would apply,
allowing any onlookers who succeed in the test to see something of a
shimmering in the air between caster and target.
This makes me wonder about manipulations though: how visible are they?
Since they travel through the physical plane, IMO they should be more
visible than other spells. Maybe Magic - Force, without doubling it?

BTW, that Manabolt would not just be obvious on the physical plane but on
the shaman's body too :) 5S physical damage is not nice...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I'm happy just to watch them all and laugh.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----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. 61 On 25 Apr 97 at 18:03, Ray & Tamara wrote:

> > >You're being a bit condescending aren't you.
> >
> > Uh, no. I thought I was being helpful. I was more worried
> > about
> > offending Drekhead. I still don't know how I offended you.
>
> No you didn't. Drekhead said "so I have to assume that when someone
> is quoting a book, they are doing it completely and accurately. So
> much for that assumption." I thought that that was being
> condescending.

It was condescending. Sorry about that. It was sparked by MC23's
harsh tone towards me, and ended up insulting you. Such is the nature
of flames, neh?

And, MC23, shame on you ya' big bully! See what you caused? :)

#@&%*===========================================================*%&@#
# DREKHEAD - drekhead@***.net, drekhead@***.com - Tim Kerby #
#@&%*===========================================================*%&@#
#@&%*===========================================================*%&@#
# --- http://users.aol.com/drekhead/home.html --- #
#@&%*===========================================================*%&@#
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot
stomping on a human face...forever. -George Orwell

Message no. 62 Drekhead once dared to write,

>It was condescending. Sorry about that. It was sparked by MC23's
>harsh tone towards me, and ended up insulting you. Such is the nature
>of flames, neh?
>
>And, MC23, shame on you ya' big bully! See what you caused? :)

Really? Great I get to dance another evil victory dance! B>P#

- MC23, who is a dancing machine -

Message no. 63 > It's clear now; to this, the normal (Magic - Force) x2 rule would apply,
> allowing any onlookers who succeed in the test to see something of a
> shimmering in the air between caster and target.

Exactly, but it would still IMHO be accompanied by
gesturing/chanting/dancing on the part of the shaman under normal
circumstances.

> This makes me wonder about manipulations though: how visible are they?
> Since they travel through the physical plane, IMO they should be more
> visible than other spells. Maybe Magic - Force, without doubling it?

I would say that they are absolutly visible because they travel on the
mundane plane. That's why the target gets armor factored in.

> BTW, that Manabolt would not just be obvious on the physical plane but on
> the shaman's body too :) 5S physical damage is not nice...

That it would...hope it killed the baddy because I highly doubt you'll
convince the shaman to throw another one. =)

-Caric

"One cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."
-Albert Einstein

Message no. 64 On 21 Apr 97 at 8:24, Grendel wrote:

> >Even though I said that it requires some movement or speaking, I still
> >think a mage can cast a spell providing he can see his target and he can
> >move a little bit, or speak. He could still cast even if he was tied up.
> >The only reason I made that point is that, as far as I'm concerned, the
> >test to notice spellcasting is noticing the mage doing 'something'.
>
> I think the spellcaster must move AND speak. He must at least point his
> target (if the spell involves targeting) and name the spell he wants to do.
> If not why Lone Star uses a Magemask (p. 102). It make the mage unable to
> speak and see and they tie his hands not to move. In addition, there's a
> white noise generator so that the mage can't concentrate. If all this
> gesture/speaking was not involved in casting, Lone Star would not have taken
> this method to arrest mages and shamans. I think.

Errr... try this on for size.. quoting from P.127 of SRII:
"Hermetic mages command the astral forces through very specific,
practiced, precise formulas. Most of the effort is mental; the
exercise of commanding the forces is a task of mental gymnastics
and willpower. Some physical activity accompanies the spell, but
it is minor compared to the work the mage's mind is doing.
Perhaps some words must be spoken, a minor gesture be made, or
some symbolic material be used in some manner. Regardless, the
mage calls up the mental multidemensional image of the spell
formula, imposes it on the forces of reality at hand, then
shapes, channels, and directs them to the desired end."

Notice that it says "Perhaps some words..." To me, this is
leaving it up to GM discretion. Further down the page, it talks
of Shamans....

"Shamans, however, rarely cast magic the same way twice. Their
magic comes from intuition, improvisation, and an understanding
of the moment. The forces of nature are called, not commanded.
The shaman considers the forces of nature to be allies, not
tools, allies to be praised for their assistance. The specifics
of calling of powers is very personal and must be tailored to
the situation. Each dance, each chant, each song is different
because the moment is different. Thus, each spellcasting is
different. Like the mage, the shaman uses his mind to call on
the unseen forces of magic, but his spellcasting has more
external components in the form of dances, gesture, chants, or
songs. Most of this is voluntary, however. When necessary, the
shaman can call the forces of nature with barely a whisper."

Once again, maybe up to the GM,.. but I gotta' tell ye, be very,
very careful with a Shaman. The way I read this, he doesn't need
to do anything but think about the spell. The mage too, except
that the mage must do it the same way every time. In other
words, I don't feel the shaman must be able to move or speak,
and push come to shove, even blindfolded, he could possibly
still summon a spirit.
Excalibur
Darrell Bowman
bowmandl@*****.dhr.state.nc.us

Message no. 65 On 23 Apr 97 at 8:58, Drekhead wrote:

> After following this thread, I tend to agree with Gossamer and the
> camp that says that no verbal and somantic components are required
> for spellcasting, for the reasons he stated. But it does
> raise one question in my mind: then how does hermeticism differ from
> shamanism? Don't shamans have to dance, or sing, or something? I can
> see how a hermetic mage could just recite the spell formula in his
> head, but what does a shaman do?

They call upon the forces of nature and shape them to do his
will.... per page 127 of SRII.
Excalibur
Darrell Bowman
bowmandl@*****.dhr.state.nc.us

Message no. 66 In message <m0wJxt4-0004wfC@*******.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>, Sascha
Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE> writes
>As per "NOTICING SPELLCASTING" (SRII, p. 132) the way to detect a
>spell being cast depends of a) the power of the spell, and b) the
>power (Magic Attribute) of the caster. The only place I remember where
>gestures are used, is Grimoire, p.52, "Gesture Geas": "If he [the
>magician] is tied up, handcuffed, paralyzed, or otherwise not free to
>move his hands and arms, he breaks his geas." This implies strongly
>one who doesn't have this geas can use sorcery even _when_ "tied up,
>handcuffed, paralyzed, or otherwise not free to move his hands and
>arms" IMHO.

Grimoire P. 53, under Gesture geas:

"Notice that the casting of even simple magic requires some activity on
the mage's part (as detailed in Noticing Spellcasting, P132, SRII). This
geas operates over and above that and is _always_ noticeable as
spellcasting."

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

Message no. 67 Caric said on 12:16/25 Apr 97...

> Exactly, but it would still IMHO be accompanied by
> gesturing/chanting/dancing on the part of the shaman under normal
> circumstances.

Which makes it obvious what's going on to people who know about these
things, yes. Others may have difficulty interpreting why that guy is
dancing and singing, though.

> > This makes me wonder about manipulations though: how visible are they?
> > Since they travel through the physical plane, IMO they should be more
> > visible than other spells. Maybe Magic - Force, without doubling it?
>
> I would say that they are absolutly visible because they travel on the
> mundane plane. That's why the target gets armor factored in.

What I mean is that, even though something is on the physical plane,
it doesn't it's automatically 100% visible. Take a Fireball designed as a
manipulation spell as an example -- especially at a low Force, I think all
you'd see of it is a little ball of flame shooting from the caster to the
target. This may not necessarily be all that visible, which is why I'm
thinking of making the TN for this test equal to the caster's Magic minus
the spell's Force.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I just know that something good is going to happen.
I don't know when...
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----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------

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer