Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Malcolm Shaw malhms@*********.com.au
Subject: Re More Thoughts on MitS and Foci
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 16:33:34 +1000
The more I read the rules in MitS on Anchoring Foci the more I find the
rules more complicated and more disadvantageous to the mage that I
wonder why they are in the rules at all. To illustrate:
Page 70 MitS under Spellcasting states, "The initiate casts the spell
being linked to the focus at this time, per standard spell casting
rules. You do not have to make the test at this time - you merely note
the number of dice to be rolled fo the sorcery test. When the anchor is
activated later, that is the number of dice used for the anchor's
"spellcasting". When you consider at this time the total number of dice
to be used for all functions then this number of dice is most limited
and would limit the mage to lower force spells in order to survive drain
levels. The rules continue - "If a detection spell is being used as a
trigger, that spell must also be cast at this time. The detection spell
is cast immediately after the anchoring spell but is considered part of
the same spellcasting action. So Sorcery and Spell Pool do not refresh.
Again note the number of dice rolled; use this number to determine if
the detection spell later detects anything that would trigger the spell.
Again the Drain Test is made later." This increases the drain on the
total Sorcery/ Spellpool dice available to the mage during this process
and if I am right in my calculations will limit the spell force the mage
can cast at this time. (I have used a basic initiate level of grade 2 -
magic 6+2 spell pool 6 and wisdom 6 for my mage)
The rules continue under Linking Test: "To link the spell and triggers,
the initiate takes a Complex Action and makes a Sorcery Test against a
target number equal to the Force of the spell. Only Sorcery and Spell
Pool dice that were not used for spell casting may be used.

Then under Drain (page 71) "Once the spell is linked, the initiate takes
Drain for both the Linking Test and any detection spells used as
triggers, using Willpower and any allocated Sorcery or Spell Pool dice."

This to me indicates that the mage trying to anchoring a spell to either
a reusable or expendable focus is under severe strain, I mean 6 Sorcery,
6 Spell Pool dice and 6 Willpower can only be stretched so far. The
examples given on page 71 under Using Anchoring -eg the "Executive
Protection" with a force 10 anchoring focus with force 5 Bullet Armor
Spell and Force 5 Detect Bullet spell would prove difficult to cast and
if one looks at the need to drain after the anchor is triggered and I
read the rules correctly and then if it is a reusable anchoring re-link
the spell, however there is no wording to suggest that at this time the
number of dice to be used is limited as before. On triggering the focus
the same number of dice used during the Spellcasting - ie it "casts" the
spell and if detection spell it also casts the detection spell. With the
limits put on the use of dice this severely reduces the possibility of
success. This would make me when playing a mage totally ignore the
anchoring focus as IMO it gives little chance of success for too great a
cost (Karma and Nuyen) to warrant.

Other question that came up the other night in game time were:
a) if the anchoring focus is dual natured and can be attacked in astral
space - can it be masked? I can find no evidence to suggest that other
foci are dual natured and can be attacked in Astral space unless they
are activated.
b) If a mage or shaman is carrying an anchoring focus (reusable or
expendable) and passes through a ward or astral barrier then the focus
and the barrier/ward would come in opposition. If the spell in the
anchoring focus has been triggered and not re-linked is the focus still
dual natured? and if so what effect would dispelling the spell have on
the focus - would it need the spell to be rebonded or simply re-linked
or would this effect the focus itself?
c) in SR3 and Mits there is a price listed (SR3 page 305, MitS page
169) for Fetishes. Sr3 gives no mention anywhere else in regards to
these fetishes and MitS only mentions them (page 41-42) without giving
any details of their action. The Grimoire page 23 covers Fetish foci as
an expandable fetish that has been enchanted and can be used one time by
a mage or shaman to enhance the casting of a spell or help with Drain
Tests. I thought these were changed in SR3 to the expendable spell foci
with costs per force. Yet in SR3 and MitS there are listed Fetishes at a
fixed cost (per use ie combat, detection, healing etc). Can someone
please explain if fetishes are still available and if so why when using
them at the much cheaper cost than the expendable spell foci would be my
most obvious choice. Also in the Grimoire if indicates a benefit from
fetishes per force but the cost does not vary by force??


Confused and bewildered - all help greatly appreciated.

Malcolm
Message no. 2
From: David Woods david@*******.freeserve.co.uk
Subject: Re More Thoughts on MitS and Foci
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 10:39:11 +0100
Malcolm Shaw wrote:

> This to me indicates that the mage trying to anchoring a spell to either
> a reusable or expendable focus is under severe strain, I mean 6 Sorcery,
> 6 Spell Pool dice and 6 Willpower can only be stretched so far.

Perhaps a Ritual Team?

> Other question that came up the other night in game time were:
>
> a) if the anchoring focus is dual natured and can be attacked in astral
> space - can it be masked?

Yes. Why couldn't it be masked?

> I can find no evidence to suggest that other
> foci are dual natured and can be attacked in Astral space unless they
> are activated.

That's my opinion as well. A foci is only dual natured while active. As
anchored foci (with a spell) is always active, it is always has an
astral form that can be attacked.

> b) If a mage or shaman is carrying an anchoring focus (reusable or
> expendable) and passes through a ward or astral barrier then the focus
> and the barrier/ward would come in opposition. If the spell in the
> anchoring focus has been triggered and not re-linked is the focus still
> dual natured?

The focus is unaffected, deactivated or destroyed. If it is deactivated
or destroyed it is not astrally active.

> and if so what effect would dispelling the spell have on
> the focus - would it need the spell to be rebonded or simply re-linked
> or would this effect the focus itself?

Just re-linked iirc. The Focus is still tuned to the spell.

Regards

- David Woods
Message no. 3
From: Brett Borger bxb121@***.edu
Subject: Re More Thoughts on MitS and Foci
Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 14:05:27 -0400 (EDT)
> c) in SR3 and Mits there is a price listed (SR3 page 305, MitS page
> 169) for Fetishes. Sr3 gives no mention anywhere else in regards to
> these fetishes and MitS only mentions them (page 41-42) without giving
> any details of their action. The Grimoire page 23 covers Fetish foci as
> an expandable fetish that has been enchanted and can be used one time by
> a mage or shaman to enhance the casting of a spell or help with Drain
> Tests. I thought these were changed in SR3 to the expendable spell foci
> with costs per force. Yet in SR3 and MitS there are listed Fetishes at a
> fixed cost (per use ie combat, detection, healing etc). Can someone

Expendable Fetishes were replaced by the Expendable Spell Focus.
Reusable Fetishes, however, stuck around albeit in a changed format
(Check the SR3 section on learning spells, sorry my books not with
me).

You can make a spell Fetish required and either(IIRC):
1) Reduce the force for purposes of Karma cost to learn
or
2) Reduce the force for Drain purposes when casting.

THus if I learn a Fetish-required Manabolt 6, I can either spend 5
Karma to learn it and suffer 6/2(wnd) Drain when casting, or 6 Karma
and suffer 5/2(wnd) Drain when casting. To my targets in either case
it is a Force 6 Spell.

-=SwiftOne=-

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Re More Thoughts on MitS and Foci, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

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