Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Mike Ruane <Nethicus@***.COM>
Subject: Shielding vs. Damaging Manips
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 13:56:50 -0500
> This question came up over the weekend. I do not think that damaging
>manipulations canot be defended against with spell defence or shielding.
>Even if you go as far as casting the spell on a different target to avoid
>the spell defence of the opposing mage and hoping that the wave of the spell
>will get him - the opponent can still try to defend your actiual target.

That brings up a good point. I've been playing with the idea of damaging
manips. The book plays them off of body, mainly, but the way they work I
think leans more towards using them as an area attack that a person can
avoid. Since armor can be applied towards these magical attacks, and since
spell defense/shield can be applied towards magic, the defense dice should
work agains the magic. In one of RObert Charettes books, Sam gets blasted by
a fireball and survives thanks to spell defense. It was described as the
astral energy being channelled & diffused in the astral. Why wouldn't this
work against damaging manipulation spells? But how would shielding affect
these spells.
I would suggest that shielding would be added as armor against the incoming
spell, or as dice to the defending attribute (I prefer the previous one). As
you are actively shileding against a magical attack, the damaging magic would
be lessened through the sheer power of the initiates control over magic. So
a grade 4 initiate would be looking at 2's if he were in a suit and a wizzer
hit him with a force 6 acid blast. I would also consider that an arch-mage
(initiate 6 or higher) would completely shield himself from the damaging
manipulations effects (if the spell was only force 6). It's like a grenade
hitting the front armor of an M1A1. Sure, the effect is pretty, but that
just gives the tank gunner a new target.

Whattya think?

Mike, TGC
Message no. 2
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Shielding vs. Damaging Manips
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 13:04:49 +1100
Mike Ruane writes:

> I would suggest that shielding would be added as armor against the incoming
> spell, or as dice to the defending attribute (I prefer the previous one). As
> you are actively shileding against a magical attack, the damaging magic would
> be lessened through the sheer power of the initiates control over magic. So
> a grade 4 initiate would be looking at 2's if he were in a suit and a wizzer
> hit him with a force 6 acid blast. I would also consider that an arch-mage
> (initiate 6 or higher) would completely shield himself from the damaging
> manipulations effects (if the spell was only force 6). It's like a grenade
> hitting the front armor of an M1A1. Sure, the effect is pretty, but that
> just gives the tank gunner a new target.
>
> Whattya think?

A bit too powerful. Damaging manipulations already have the disadvantage
that those affected by them can add in armour (1/2 Impact). The damaging
manipulation spell also have very high drain as well. If you allow shielding
to provide "hard cover" against damaging manipulations, then the spells will
become absolutely useless. Also note in your above example that you have
allowed the defending magician to get the "armour" for free - no expenditure
of shielding dice; you based it all on his grade of initiation.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(*) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') (!)tv(--)@
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 3
From: Mike Ruane <Nethicus@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Shielding vs. Damaging Manips
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 00:27:45 -0500
Damion Milliken writes:

>become absolutely useless. Also note in your above example that you have
>allowed the defending magician to get the "armour" for free - no expenditure
>of shielding dice; you based it all on his grade of initiation.

I was assuming that the magician was using his full potential of shielding
for each case, sorry.

Mike, TGC
Message no. 4
From: Andy Butcher <Fiend@*********.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Shielding vs. Damaging Manips
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 10:38:17 GMT
>> I would suggest that shielding would be added as armor against the incoming
>> spell, or as dice to the defending attribute (I prefer the previous one). As
>> you are actively shileding against a magical attack, the damaging magic would
>> be lessened through the sheer power of the initiates control over magic. So
>> a grade 4 initiate would be looking at 2's if he were in a suit and a wizzer
>> hit him with a force 6 acid blast. I would also consider that an arch-mage
>> (initiate 6 or higher) would completely shield himself from the damaging
>> manipulations effects (if the spell was only force 6). It's like a grenade
>> hitting the front armor of an M1A1. Sure, the effect is pretty, but that
>> just gives the tank gunner a new target.
>>
>> Whattya think?

I've been having some problems with daamaging manipulations myself,
actually. It never seemed to make sense to me that the damaging effect had
an astral/spell component as well as a physical one, and was thus subject to
spell defence, but you couldn't ground them through astrally active things.

In the FAQ that's sometimes posted to rec.games.frp.cyber (or whatever the
damn group's called), it suggested a house rule whereby the 'spell' itself
only existed to create the damaging stuff (fire, water, ice, whatever) and
throw it at the target - effectively it empowers the mage to create a
damagin effect, which then flies off at the target, so the spell is being
cast on the mage him/herself. This way you can't use spell defence against
it, and it explains why they can't ground.

Unfortunately, it also means that you couldn't use them for ritual sorcery
(as far as I can tell) and they can't be cast in astral space (which kinda
makes sense anyway, I guess. I quite like the idea, and it's more consistent
and makes more sense to me. I figure that the problems like high drain,
armour and cover protecting (and so on) make up for the fact that they can't
be affected by spell defense/shielding. But what do you guys and gals think?

Andy Butcher | "Whether you think you will succeed or not,
PC Gamer Magazine | you are right."
Fiend@*********.co.uk | Henry Ford
Message no. 5
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Shielding vs. Damaging Manips
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 23:08:42 +1100
Andy Butcher writes:

> I've been having some problems with daamaging manipulations myself,
> actually. It never seemed to make sense to me that the damaging effect had
> an astral/spell component as well as a physical one, and was thus subject to
> spell defence, but you couldn't ground them through astrally active things.

Could you explain this a little perhaps? To me it seems perfectly Ok. The
spell is created by the caster, more or less using his own aura to bring the
energy from the astral plane to the physical plane, and "thrown" at the
target, where opon it impacts and releases magical energy to create some
elemental effect. It is impossible to ground because the spell has a
physical component which travels through physical space to the target, which
cannot be done from the astral (the mage has no way of getting the spell to
the physical realm without grounding it through something, but he cannot
ground it through anything because he cannot get the spell to something to
ground it through becasue he cannot get the spell to the physical realm for
its travel time. A vicious circle.). Spell defence worked against it because
it was a _magical_ spell and spell defence works against magical spells.

> In the FAQ that's sometimes posted to rec.games.frp.cyber (or whatever the
> damn group's called), it suggested a house rule whereby the 'spell' itself
> only existed to create the damaging stuff (fire, water, ice, whatever) and
> throw it at the target - effectively it empowers the mage to create a
> damagin effect, which then flies off at the target, so the spell is being
> cast on the mage him/herself. This way you can't use spell defence against
> it, and it explains why they can't ground.

Yes, it would, but why does it explain why spell defence couldn't be used?

> Unfortunately, it also means that you couldn't use them for ritual sorcery
> (as far as I can tell)

I had actually assumed this all along - how can the spell travel the
distance physically (which it says it must in the rules) to get to the
target?

> and they can't be cast in astral space (which kinda makes sense anyway, I
> guess. I quite like the idea, and it's more consistent and makes more sense
> to me. I figure that the problems like high drain, armour and cover
> protecting (and so on) make up for the fact that they can't be affected by
> spell defense/shielding. But what do you guys and gals think?

I'd always had it that they couldn't be cast in astral space. And I'd more
or less equated the constant relatively low target number, and the nastier
elemental effects (Damaging Manipulations get much superior elemental
efefcts compared to Combat spells) and the fact that you didn't need to
actually see your target to hit it as evening out against the higher drain
and armour/cover bits.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 6
From: Andy Butcher <Fiend@*********.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Shielding vs. Damaging Manips
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 11:25:51 GMT
Damion Milliken wrote (after lots of deletion to save space):

>
>Spell defence worked against it because it was a _magical_ spell and spell
>defence works against magical spells.
>

We seem to agree on just about everything, apart from this. I see a damaging
manipulation as allowing the caster to create and project an effect at a
target. The effect (fire, water, ice, whatever) is the thing that travels
between the caster and the target, not the spell itself, and the effect does
the damage, not the spell - that's one of the main differences between them
and combat spells with elemental effects.

That's why I don't think that spell defence should work - the caster is
effectively casting the spell on his/herself. Spell defence can only be used
when attacked by a spell, and with my version of damaging manipulations,
that's not happeningl - you're being attacked by an effect _created_ by a
spell. In this way of looking at damaging manipulations there's no 'astral
component' to the damaging effect that can be countered.

Whadda ya think?

Andy Butcher | "Whether you think you will succeed or not,
PC Gamer Magazine | you are right."
Fiend@*********.co.uk | Henry Ford
Message no. 7
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Shielding vs. Damaging Manips
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 12:46:35 GMT
I agree with Andy Butcher <Fiend@*********.CO.UK> when he says
that because a damaging manipulation produces a "non-magical"
elemental effect, then the 'logic' of SR magic says that you
shouldn;t be able to shield against it.

However, if this is the way you want to go, I suggest the
following rules to keep combat spells from becoming totally
fragging useless;

1) Remember the cover rules, they count vs Manipulations,
including your own cover (FOF)! If your LOS is obscured,
or you can;t gesture properly becuase your hiding behind
something, it's harder to hit. What mage stands out in the
open?
2) The fire/whatever shoots from you, that means that everyone
knows who the mages, to misquote the CP: ref's handbook,
once the mage has been identified, a lot of resources are
usually thrown into disposing of him. The army won't think
twice about demolishing a building with a mage in."
3) Make combat spells immune to the effects of cover, if you
an see part of him, you can see his aura, and that's what
you're targetting, there has to be some use for the things.

Phil <and Runs-With-The-Pack, an irate qwolf shaman, who
rarely uses his +2 combat spell bonus these days>
Message no. 8
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Shielding vs. Damaging Manips
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 23:05:35 +1000
Andy Butcher writes:

> That's why I don't think that spell defence should work - the caster is
> effectively casting the spell on his/herself. Spell defence can only be used
> when attacked by a spell, and with my version of damaging manipulations,
> that's not happeningl - you're being attacked by an effect _created_ by a
> spell. In this way of looking at damaging manipulations there's no 'astral
> component' to the damaging effect that can be countered.
>
> Whadda ya think?

Well, try page 132 SRII "When protected characters or objects are attacked
by magic...". A Damaging Manipulation spell counts as "magic" by my
definition. I don't see why spell defence dice should be restricted to
spells that attack through one's aura only.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 9
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Shielding vs. Damaging Manips
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 22:41:22 +0930
> 1) Remember the cover rules, they count vs Manipulations,
> including your own cover (FOF)! If your LOS is obscured,
> or you can;t gesture properly becuase your hiding behind
> something, it's harder to hit. What mage stands out in the
> open?

All ranged DMs are subject to ranged combat modifiers.

> 2) The fire/whatever shoots from you, that means that everyone
> knows who the mages, to misquote the CP: ref's handbook,
> once the mage has been identified, a lot of resources are
> usually thrown into disposing of him. The army won't think
> twice about demolishing a building with a mage in."

This tends to happen anyway (see "Noticing Spellcasting", or something like
that in the Magic section of the main book)

> 3) Make combat spells immune to the effects of cover, if you
> an see part of him, you can see his aura, and that's what
> you're targetting, there has to be some use for the things.
>

Isn't it like that already?

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Finger me for my geek code
Message no. 10
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Shielding vs. Damaging Manips
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 22:42:51 +0930
Damion Milliken wrote:
>
> Well, try page 132 SRII "When protected characters or objects are attacked
> by magic...". A Damaging Manipulation spell counts as "magic" by my
> definition. I don't see why spell defence dice should be restricted to
> spells that attack through one's aura only.

'Cause spell defence works via the aura, maybe?

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Finger me for my geek code
Message no. 11
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Shielding vs. Damaging Manips
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 13:25:57 GMT
In response to Robert Watkins <bob@**.EDU.NTU.IT>,

I know it happens anyway, but some guy gesturing and the sec-guard on
my team falling over is slightly less attention grabbing than some guy with
flame coming out of his hands.

These aren't rules-suggestions, merely points to remember when using DM's,
so that if you disallow shielding vs them, they don't run away with the game.


Combat spells aren;t affected by cover? Oops, hadn't noticed that, I'll go
away and have a look. I thought that (originally) anything that obscured your
view to the target (poor light, cover, etc), increased your TNo's.

'...The final thing, Phil Ward
it's not a drill. Runs-With-The-Pack
It's how many people I can kill' UWCC -: COMMMA
- Slayer P.Ward@**.cf.ac.uk


oh, sorry for the ;'s by the way, the I'm not 100% used to this keyboard.
Message no. 12
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Shielding vs. Damaging Manips
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 23:39:29 +1000
Robert Watkins writes:

> > 1) Remember the cover rules, they count vs Manipulations,
> > including your own cover (FOF)! If your LOS is obscured,
> > or you can;t gesture properly becuase your hiding behind
> > something, it's harder to hit. What mage stands out in the
> > open?

I'd debate the FoF cover ruling for spellcasting. Spellcasting requires no
gesturing, no speaking, no chanting, no dancing or any of those types of
things. The FoF rule is there to represent the problems of trying to get a
clear shot with a weapon while simultaneously trying to keep ones head
behind cover. Spellcasting only requires LOS from the caster to the target,
no special manouvering to bring weapons to bear or anything like that. As
for what mage stands out in the open, there are two answers:
1) A Nob head, ie, any magician with half a brian will, as you
indicate, take cover.
2) One who doesn't need cover. With a Bullet Barrier spell, and a
Combat Pool in the teens, who needs cover?

> > 3) Make combat spells immune to the effects of cover, if you
> > an see part of him, you can see his aura, and that's what
> > you're targetting, there has to be some use for the things.
>
> Isn't it like that already?

Nope. Spellcasting must take into consideration all environmental factors.
Bad lighting, target cover, the lot. This applies for both Damaging
Manipulation and Combat spells (and others too, if you wish to cast an
Levitate Person on someone for example). (Page 130, SRII.)

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 13
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Shielding vs. Damaging Manips
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 13:47:53 GMT
Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU> Wrote:

> Spellcasting requires no gesturing, no speaking, no chanting, no dancing or any
> of those types of things.

Not totally true, there are the rules for noticing spellcasting, which means the mage
has to do something, to be noticed. Not to mention the shamanic Mask (always a dead
giveaway that, when your head turns into that of a wolf.


It's just that if you don;t allow Shielding vs DM's, then there has to be a use
for Combat spells, even Physiocal effect ones.

One a side-note, Mana-Blast seems sort of Ok, it represents the stunning effects of
getting hit by the spell, you tend to fall over (isn't that what blast did?).

Ouch, Barrier in the teens? Do you use alternate rules for the things? I tend to
add +1 rating to the barrier for every two successes, and even then they don't get
that big.

Oops, _combat pool_ in the teens, my mistake.

'...The final thing, Phil Ward
it's not a drill. Runs-With-The-Pack
It's how many people I can kill' UWCC -: COMMMA
- Slayer P.Ward@**.cf.ac.uk
Message no. 14
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Shielding vs. Damaging Manips
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 23:51:31 +1000
Robert Watkins writes:

> > Well, try page 132 SRII "When protected characters or objects are attacked
> > by magic...". A Damaging Manipulation spell counts as "magic" by
my
> > definition. I don't see why spell defence dice should be restricted to
> > spells that attack through one's aura only.
>
> 'Cause spell defence works via the aura, maybe?

If it worked that way, I'd imagine that the rules would specify someplace
that Spell Defence couldn't be used on Damaging Manipulation spells. Since
the rules do not specify this, and they _do_ specify what I quoted, then all
leads point to Spell Defence assisting in the defence against Damaging
Manipulation spells.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 15
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Shielding vs. Damaging Manips
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 23:54:05 +1000
P Ward writes:

> These aren't rules-suggestions, merely points to remember when using DM's,
> so that if you disallow shielding vs them, they don't run away with the game.

Good idea I think, and, ohh, naughty me, I'm going to mention those words
which make everybody disregard an argument, I think Game Balance should be
maintained. :-)

> Combat spells aren;t affected by cover? Oops, hadn't noticed that, I'll go
> away and have a look. I thought that (originally) anything that obscured your
> view to the target (poor light, cover, etc), increased your TNo's.

Well, you thought correctly.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 16
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Shielding vs. Damaging Manips
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 13:59:37 GMT
> If it worked that way, I'd imagine that the rules would specify someplace
> that Spell Defence couldn't be used on Damaging Manipulation spells. Since
> the rules do not specify this, and they _do_ specify what I quoted, then all
> leads point to Spell Defence assisting in the defence against Damaging
> Manipulation spells.


Yeah, I agree. This was the official response I got from Mike at FASA,
it's just that the _logic_ of the magic seems to indicate it wouldn't help.

Personally, I play with shielding affecting DM's, just to avoid Game Balance
problems, and because I _like_ combat spells.
Message no. 17
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Shielding vs. Damaging Manips
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 17:32:51 +0100
> > Spellcasting requires no gesturing, no speaking, no chanting, no dancing or any
> > of those types of things.
>
> Not totally true, there are the rules for noticing spellcasting, which means the mage
> has to do something, to be noticed. Not to mention the shamanic Mask (always a dead
> giveaway that, when your head turns into that of a wolf.

Nope the rules about noticing spellcasting are there to cover the "power
overflow"
that comes into play when a mage casts a spell. thats why they have to do a lot with
the force of you spell. The way I play it a mage simply starts to glow if the spell
has a force of say > 6, a force of 8 would make him a veritable beacon.

> It's just that if you don;t allow Shielding vs DM's, then there has to be a use
> for Combat spells, even Physiocal effect ones.

How about they are "low-drain-level-considerably-more-effective-attack-spells"

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d>- H s+: !g p? !au a- w+ v-(?) C+++ UA++S++L+>++++ P-- (aren't we all?)
L+>+++ 3 E--- N+ K W(+)(---) M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5+ !j(-) R+++(--)
!G tv(++) b++ D+ B- e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(----) y?

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Shielding vs. Damaging Manips, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

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

Thwap!