Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Bonatier De'Neezriel <mcmillar@***.GLASGOW.AC.UK>
Subject: Spell Defense
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 92 17:46:27 GMT
Got a query for ya out there:

When you use the Magic Pool for spell defense how do you handle it?
The vanilla book says that the mage can either use his pool for his own
defense or to protect others of his choosing. Now, I take this to mean that
the mage can not use the dice himself if he is holding defense for others,
thereby reducing his chance of withstanding the spell <evil GM grin>.

Of course, he could allocate some dice to the party and some to himself but
that isn't so heroic.

Whadaya think?

Mon Dorph.
__________________________________________________________________________
| mcmillar@***.glasgow.ac.uk | |
| | "If you have to look it up, maybe |
| Bonatier De'Neezriel | you shouldn't be playing with it?" |
| or | |
| Mon Dorph | -The late John Link, Magical Instructor |
|_______________________________|__________________________________________|
Message no. 2
From: RAPICKERING@******
Subject: Re: Spell Defense
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 92 06:39:00 EDT
You write:
=> Got a query for ya out there:

=>
=> When you use the Magic Pool for spell defense how do you handle it?
=> The vanilla book says that the mage can either use his pool for his own
=> defense or to protect others of his choosing. Now, I take this to mean that

=> the mage can not use the dice himself if he is holding defense for others,

=> thereby reducing his chance of withstanding the spell <evil GM grin>.
=>
=> Of course, he could allocate some dice to the party and some to himself but
=> that isn't so heroic.
=>
=> Whadaya think?
=>

=> Mon Dorph.
=>

Well Chummer,

Since mages only get magic pool equal to their Magic Attribute + power foci +
weapon foci, I really don't care where they allocate them. They only refresh
on their action, so you'll have (what 6-8?) to blow on the party first, for the
faster moving Street Sams (I'm assuming that you have a magic pool before its
actually your action), then you can have it refreshed on your move. Just hope
that there aren't any mages that move faster than you.

-Onyx
Message no. 3
From: WILDCARD@*******
Subject: Re: Spell defense
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 92 17:50:00 -0800
=> [ deletion of Mon Dorph's query on the finer points of spell defense ]

Then Onyx responds:


>Since mages only get magic pool equal to their Magic Attribute + power foci +
>weapon foci, I really don't care where they allocate them. They only refresh
>on their action,so you'll have (what 6-8?) to blow on the party first, for the
>faster moving Street Sams (I'm assuming that you have a magic pool before its
>actually your action), then you can have it refreshed on your move. Just hope
>that there aren't any mages that move faster than you.

I may be wrong but I believe that the magic pool is Sorcery+power foci rating.
That's what I seem to remember anyways. I don't think that weapon foci have
anything to do with it.
I also believe that the rules also state that the magician can devote dice from
his/her magic pool to anyone he/she so designates (as long they are line of
sight). This is different from Shielding in the Grimoire for several
fundamental reasons but notably because Shielding has a limited number of
people.

My .02 nuyen...

- WildCard !!

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ "It's like Sartre said,'Consciousness (in this case The Matrix) is a being +
+ such that in its being, its being is in question insofar as this being im- +
+ plies a being other than itself.' Profound? Maybe.I dont think it matters."+
+ - WildCard !! +
+ [ "Plex Personalities," Shadowland BBS] +
+-------- wildcard@*******.nevada.edu --------------------------------------+
Message no. 4
From: Sgt Pepper <GRBENNET@*****.CIS.ECU.EDU>
Subject: spell defense
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 16:39:40 EDT
I know a astrally percieving magician cannot not engage a spell in combat,
but the reason given is his meat body can mathc the speed of the spell.
My question is, if the spell is cast at him, can he defend against it, since
he doesn't have to intercept it.

Sgt Pepper

"I MAY BE SANE BUT I'M CRAZIER THAN YOU"

GeekCodev2.1
GM/ED d--(++) H+ s+: g+ p? au+ a26 w+ v-(*) c+ u- P? !L !3 E? !N k- w+
m V+ -po+ Y+ t+ 5- j R+ G' tv+ b++ D+ B c+++(*) u+(**) h f+ r !n y+
Message no. 5
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: spell defense
Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 09:21:34 BST
the Great Sgt Pepper wrote :-

> I know a astrally percieving magician cannot not engage a spell in combat,
> but the reason given is his meat body can mathc the speed of the spell.
> My question is, if the spell is cast at him, can he defend against it, since
> he doesn't have to intercept it.

There's a specfic passage either in the grimmy or the SR2 book which disallows
you to engage spells cast at you in astral combat, if you allow them to do it,
watch all your PC mages wander round with theit astral senses switched on,
and laugh when people volley spells at them. This is not the way it's supposed
to be, you're supposed to be nervous about going astral, becuase it leaves
you and your team vulnerable.

I rather suspect that you can only intercept spells that are cast on the
physical, at a physical target, not those cast on the astral, but Damon will
have to check me on that.

Oh yeah, and you can always use spell defense.

Phil (Renegade; yeah, but I'm insane, so I;m worse than the both of you ;-))
Message no. 6
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: spell defense
Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 10:32:46 +0200
>I know a astrally percieving magician cannot not engage a spell in combat,
>but the reason given is his meat body can mathc the speed of the spell.
>My question is, if the spell is cast at him, can he defend against it, since
>he doesn't have to intercept it.

He can use his Magic Pool for extra dice to resist the spell, but I don't
think he can actually fight it; he would have to be projecting to do so.
Anyways, I think it's easier and usually less dangerous to simply resist the
spell than to fight it.

BTW, has anyone else come to the conclusion that fighting spells is not very
useful? The magician does (charisma)L damage, while the spell does
(force)Drain Level. Try fighting a Force 5 or 6 spell with Serious drain,
and you'll probably get your ass kicked HARD...


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I found the secret to Jungle, BTW: Don't listen to it :) --Ray Cokes
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 7
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: spell defense
Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 09:36:39 BST
Gurth Wrote
> BTW, has anyone else come to the conclusion that fighting spells is not very
> useful? The magician does (charisma)L damage, while the spell does
> (force)Drain Level. Try fighting a Force 5 or 6 spell with Serious drain,
> and you'll probably get your ass kicked HARD...

Actually, I find them real easy to kill, but then I use one extra spirit
and a +1 Reach weapon foci, then you really wade those spells.

That's why I'm glad I read the bit about not being able to intercept spells
thrown at yourself.

OTOH, take them by yourself with your bare hands, and your asking for it

Phil (Renegade)
Message no. 8
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: spell defense
Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 17:18:06 +0200
> I know a astrally percieving magician cannot not engage a spell in combat,
> but the reason given is his meat body can mathc the speed of the spell.
> My question is, if the spell is cast at him, can he defend against it, since
> he doesn't have to intercept it.

No he is still too slow. Remember that if you allow such a thing for
full mages and shamen then you have to aloow it for percieving PAs as well.

--
"Tonight, hell sends an Angel bearing gifts"

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++$S++L++$>++++ L++>+++ E--- N+ h*(+)
W(+)(---) M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 9
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: spell defense
Date: Sun, 21 May 1995 10:06:16 +0200
>> I know a astrally percieving magician cannot not engage a spell in combat,
>> but the reason given is his meat body can mathc the speed of the spell.
>> My question is, if the spell is cast at him, can he defend against it, since
>> he doesn't have to intercept it.
>
> No he is still too slow. Remember that if you allow such a thing for
>full mages and shamen then you have to aloow it for percieving PAs as well.

All this only makes sense really if the spell is moving from the caster to
the target. If it's sitting still somewhere (for instance a Permanent spell,
or a Sustained one anchored to something), why wouldn't a perceiving
magician be able to hit it?


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I found the secret to Jungle, BTW: Don't listen to it :) --Ray Cokes
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 10
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: spell defense (fwd)
Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 14:29:25 +0200
And this one too...

>On Sat, 20 May 1995, Jani Fikouras wrote:
>
>> > I know a astrally percieving magician cannot not engage a spell in combat,
>> > but the reason given is his meat body can mathc the speed of the spell.
>> > My question is, if the spell is cast at him, can he defend against it,
since
>> > he doesn't have to intercept it.
>>
>> No he is still too slow. Remember that if you allow such a thing for
>> full mages and shamen then you have to aloow it for percieving PAs as well.
>
>SR2, p. 147, under "Resolving Astral Combat":
>"Even characters who cannot cast spells can use Sorcery Skill for astral
>combat. It is for this reason that physical adepts and others study Sorcery"
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
>Is this just a mistake or is there some way non-spellcasters can fight
>astrally? If you have to be projecting in order to fight on the Astral,
>then how come PhysAds have a reason to be prepared for it?
>
>And another thing: where is it written that non-projecting characters
>unable to fight?
>
>SR2, p. 147, under "Astral Initiative":
>"Characters who are only Astrally Percieving are limited to their
>physical Reactiuon and Initiative."
>
>Huh? %-O Also, it is mentioned above this passage that any character with
>an active astral presence (obviously this includes percieving characters)
>can engage in astral combat...
>
> --[ Stephanos J. Piperoglou ]------<sneakabout@**********.hol.gr>-----,
> / "I like work. I can sit and look at it for hours." - J.K. Jerome /
> / Geek Code v2.1: GCS/S/O d H-- s++:++ !g p?+ !au a16 w v+++* C++++ /
> / UL++>+++ 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? FINGER FOR SOME MORE /
>\ http://parthenon.hol.gr/people/sneakabout *COMING REAL SOON* \
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------'
>
>
>
>


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I found the secret to Jungle, BTW: Don't listen to it :) --Ray Cokes
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 11
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: spell defense (fwd)
Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 22:14:00 +0930
Gurth wrote:
> >On Sat, 20 May 1995, Jani Fikouras wrote:

>>>> I know a astrally percieving magician cannot not engage a spell in
combat,
>>>> but the reason given is his meat body can mathc the speed of the spell.
>>>> My question is, if the spell is cast at him, can he defend against it,
>>>> since he doesn't have to intercept it.

>>> No he is still too slow. Remember that if you allow such a thing for
>>> full mages and shamen then you have to aloow it for percieving PAs as well.

>>SR2, p. 147, under "Resolving Astral Combat":
>>"Even characters who cannot cast spells can use Sorcery Skill for astral
>>combat. It is for this reason that physical adepts and others study Sorcery"

>>Is this just a mistake or is there some way non-spellcasters can fight
>>astrally? If you have to be projecting in order to fight on the Astral,
>>then how come PhysAds have a reason to be prepared for it?

You have to be astrally _active_ to fight on the Astral. PhysAds, with
Astral Perception, can engage fully astral creatures, but they're going to
want the appropriate skills.

But you still can't hit a spell that's aimed at _you_. My reasoning: well,
as soon as it hits your aura, it has reached you, and has it's effect. If
you want to stop it, well, that's what spell defence is for.

>>And another thing: where is it written that non-projecting characters
>>unable to fight?

>>SR2, p. 147, under "Astral Initiative":
>>"Characters who are only Astrally Percieving are limited to their
>>physical Reactiuon and Initiative."

>>Huh? %-O Also, it is mentioned above this passage that any character with
>>an active astral presence (obviously this includes percieving characters)
>>can engage in astral combat...

You're right.

--
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. 12
From: Gary Carroll <gary@****.COM>
Subject: Re: spell defense (fwd)
Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 08:40:31 -0700
<snip>
>Gurth writes:
>SR2, p. 147, under "Resolving Astral Combat":
>"Even characters who cannot cast spells can use Sorcery Skill for astral
>combat. It is for this reason that physical adepts and others
study Sorcery"
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
>Is this just a mistake or is there some way non-spellcasters can fight
>astrally? If you have to be projecting in order to fight on the Astral,
>then how come PhysAds have a reason to be prepared for it?

The big statement there is can. They can use Sorcery skill in place
of Armed or Unarmed. *but for Physical adepts they can use their
normal Armed or Unarmed* depending on if they are using a Foci
or something like killing hands.

>And another thing: where is it written that non-projecting characters
>unable to fight?

It is written that non-projecting characters cannot fight spells.
just spells.
Of course if something doesn't want to fight a physical adept.
There is no
way that an adept could ever persue.

>SR2, p. 147, under "Astral Initiative":
>"Characters who are only Astrally Percieving are limited to their
>physical Reactiuon and Initiative."

Ohh real bummer for the physical adept <extreme sarcasm>
a mage who projects looses all bonuses from sustained/locked/
/quickened spells. i.e. the mage drops into slo motion well almost
15+ normal reaction "prob 6 or less" so not too bad. but compared
to something like 15 + 4d6 = avg of 31 (granted this is an extreme)
a physical adept does not loose any bonuses from his magically
augmented stats. but a mage does.

>Huh? %-O Also, it is mentioned above this passage that any
>character with an active astral presence (obviously this includes
>percieving characters) can engage in astral combat...

Yep - combat with mages - with spirits - with elementals - with foci
and spell locks and quickenings, "personally I would also allow
attacking anchored spells." but not cast spells.

You may have the reaction but you don't have the astral speed.
Message no. 13
From: Mark Steedman <RSMS@******.EEE.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: spell defense
Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 17:18:32 GMT
Robert Watkins writes
> Gurth wrote:
>
>>>>> I know a astrally percieving magician cannot not engage a spell in
combat,
>>>>> but the reason given is his meat body can mathc the speed of the
spell.
>>>>> My question is, if the spell is cast at him, can he defend against
it,
>>>>> since he doesn't have to intercept it.
>
>>>> No he is still too slow. Remember that if you allow such a thing for
>>>> full mages and shamen then you have to aloow it for percieving PAs as
well.
>
Acording to the rules i believe you are permitted to engage spells in
astral combat 'if and only if' you are astral project and have a held
action. Otherwise you have to use defense and hope.
As it comments in the book though the problem is that the mage that
threw the origonal spell can keep on throwing more, i would bet on
the magician to win (unless injured) as its probably 6 sorcery + 6
pool vs spell foce combat test (and i don't see force 12 spells,
never mind karma) though it can take more than 1 hit to kill the
things it your charisma is low. I have only once used this rule, ok
with a dragon (FASA adventure), here spell a 14D at +2 reach, oh yes it really
stood a chance.

>>>SR2, p. 147, under "Resolving Astral Combat":
>>>"Even characters who cannot cast spells can use Sorcery Skill for astral
>>>combat. It is for this reason that physical adepts and others study
Sorcery"
>
>>>Is this just a mistake or is there some way non-spellcasters can fight
>>>astrally? If you have to be projecting in order to fight on the Astral,
>>>then how come PhysAds have a reason to be prepared for it?
>
> You have to be astrally _active_ to fight on the Astral. PhysAds, with
> Astral Perception, can engage fully astral creatures, but they're going to
> want the appropriate skills.
>
Useful for engaging dual creatures, spirits e.t.c. especially for
magicians who have better sorcery skill than unarmed. Ok you are
reliant on the target being kind enough to stay where you can get at
it.
I don't know why the average phsad would buy sorcery for this as they
usually buy the normal combat skills which are just as effective and
can be used in the real world. This trick was very handy the day i
got in hand-hand with a Queen insect spirt (not my choice, it had,
surprise, gone first and already removed the obstructions) 6 sorcery
+ 6 cobat pool and i hit it (ok i the character didn't even tickle
the thing but better than it hitting him, a 14S would have been a
touch fatal) much better than defaulting off quickness at +2 with no
pool which would have been the only option had i not had astral
perception up at the time.

> But you still can't hit a spell that's aimed at _you_. My reasoning: well,
> as soon as it hits your aura, it has reached you, and has it's effect. If
> you want to stop it, well, that's what spell defence is for.
>
Cannot remeber the rule on that but you are probably right. Best
solution is get initiated and shield the thing (if you can) usually
the most effective solution.

> >>And another thing: where is it written that non-projecting characters
> >>unable to fight?
>
> >>SR2, p. 147, under "Astral Initiative":
> >>"Characters who are only Astrally Percieving are limited to their
> >>physical Reactiuon and Initiative."
>
That means roll physical reac + howevermany dice rather than innt*2 +
15 + 1D6 (remember no sustained spell, cyberware bonuses e.t.c. on
the astral plane)

> >>Huh? %-O Also, it is mentioned above this passage that any character with
> >>an active astral presence (obviously this includes percieving characters)
> >>can engage in astral combat...
>
> You're right.
>
Any percieving or 'dual' creature can engage in astral combat, just
use combat pool not the astral combat pool you use while projecting.
> --
> Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au

Mark
Message no. 14
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: spell defense
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 11:26:42 +0200
> >> I know a astrally percieving magician cannot not engage a spell in combat,
> >> but the reason given is his meat body can mathc the speed of the spell.
> >> My question is, if the spell is cast at him, can he defend against it, since
> >> he doesn't have to intercept it.
> >
> > No he is still too slow. Remember that if you allow such a thing for
> >full mages and shamen then you have to aloow it for percieving PAs as well.
>
> All this only makes sense really if the spell is moving from the caster to
> the target. If it's sitting still somewhere (for instance a Permanent spell,
> or a Sustained one anchored to something), why wouldn't a perceiving
> magician be able to hit it?

Ok but thats not the point. Anyone can hit a sitting duck, but a spell
flying with the speed of thought is a totally different thing. Flesh is
simply not fast enough to intercept such an attack even if it is directed
at you.

--
"Tonight, hell sends an Angel bearing gifts"

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++$S++L++$>++++ L++>+++ E--- N+ h*(+)
W(+)(---) M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 15
From: Justin Pinnow <jpinnow@***.IM.MED.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Spell Defense
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 10:30:34 -0400
>I just assume that the Magic Pool is similar to the Combat Pool. You can't
>dodge if you are suprised, so why should you be able to magically defend?

That is incorrect. Spell defense is always active. Unless you designate
specific targets to be the recipients of your spell defense, it defaults to
it's "natural" state of defense as being used entirely to defend you (the
mage). I believe it is even in effect while unconscious. (don't quote me on
that part, however...) :)

>If a mage can use Spell Defense/ Shielding to protect his amigos meters away
>from him, why couldn't he protect his toys that are right on his body?

He can. You can even use spell defense to protect physical objects across the
room, etc. as long as they are in your line of sight (just like (meta)humans).
They specifically give an example of this in the Spell Defense rules in the
SRII main book. (They describe a mage allocating his buddies and a briefcase
with spell defense--treat the object just like anyone else for rules purposes.)

Hope this helps! :)



Justin :)

_______________________________________________________________
(jpinnow@*****.edu)

Geek Code (version 2.1):

G!>ED d----(d+/d++$) H s-: !g p? au
a23 w+(+++) v?(*)>!v C+(++) U- 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++

It all starts from within you.
Message no. 16
From: Justin Pinnow <jpinnow@***.IM.MED.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: spell defense
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 16:35:02 -0400
Vincent Pellerin wrote:

>I am am afraid that this is incorrect, check SRII p.85, you can only use
>spell defense (that mean allocating magic pool dice) from the begining of
>your first action. It mean unless specified by the mage (ex: I Will use
>spell defence while we walk to the warehouse for that meeting) he cannot use
>spell defence before is first action, EVEN if he is not surprised. (make you
>think about getting that inc. reflexes +3 spell he!).

You could very well be correct. I may have based my knowledge on something
else. I know that that novels sometimes deal with spell defense differently
than what you explained...perhaps that's where I formulated some of my
opinions. (In the opening trilogy, Sam was blasted with a fireball from
behind...didn't expect it, but lived....it was later discovered that spell
defense was what saved his butt--even though at the time he was not a trained
shaman, much less someone who knew what spell defense was (not to mention how
to use it)).

To me it makes sense that it's kinda natural. But that may very well just be a
self-formulated opinion. Sorry if I caused any confusion due to misinformation.


Justin :)

_______________________________________________________________
(jpinnow@*****.edu)

Geek Code (version 2.1):

G!>ED d----(d+/d++$) H s-: !g p? au
a23 w+(+++) v?(*)>!v C+(++) U- 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++

It all starts from within you.
Message no. 17
From: "S.F. Eley" <gt6877c@*****.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: spell defense
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 08:33:05 -0400
Justin sez:

> Vincent Pellerin wrote:
> >I am am afraid that this is incorrect, check SRII p.85, you can only use
> >spell defense (that mean allocating magic pool dice) from the begining of
> >your first action.

> [ ... ] (In the opening trilogy, Sam was blasted with a fireball from
> behind...didn't expect it, but lived....it was later discovered that spell
> defense was what saved his butt--even though at the time he was not a trained
> shaman, much less someone who knew what spell defense was (not to mention how
> to use it)).

Ahhh.. Yes, I think the terms do get confused. To me, "allocating spell
defense dice" means taking dice out of your Magic Pool to use to protect the
people or objects _around_ you. You can still use your Magic Pool dice to
protect yourself, regardless of whether or not you specifically assigned
them to this purpose.. Sam's unknowing resistance to the fireball was
using spell defense for himself, but since he didn't know what it was I
don't think he could have helped anybody else with it, were anyone else
in danger (i.e., not missing or dead from a helicopter attack.)

I'm halfway through the third book of that trilogy now, and loving it..
Definitely the best of the Shadowrun fiction I've read so far.


Blessings,

_TNX._

--
Stephen F. Eley (-) gt6877c@*****.gatech.edu )-( Student Pagan Community
http://wc62.residence.gatech.edu|
My opinions are my opinions. | "Lord, what fools these mortals be..."
Please don't blame anyone else. | - Puck, _A Midsummer Night's Dream_
Message no. 18
From: Justin Pinnow <jpinnow@***.IM.MED.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Spell Defense
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 09:36:32 -0400
Stephen F. Eley wrote:

>Ahhh.. Yes, I think the terms do get confused. To me, "allocating spell
>defense dice" means taking dice out of your Magic Pool to use to protect the
>people or objects _around_ you. You can still use your Magic Pool dice to
>protect yourself, regardless of whether or not you specifically assigned
>them to this purpose.. Sam's unknowing resistance to the fireball was
>using spell defense for himself, but since he didn't know what it was I
>don't think he could have helped anybody else with it, were anyone else
>in danger (i.e., not missing or dead from a helicopter attack.)

Ah, yes. That clarifies it! so *allocating* spell defense dice means using
the dice to protect in some combination other than using them all to defend
yourself (which is the "default"). Thus, it takes a minor amount of
concentration to actually choose to allocate your dice to defend someone(or
several someone's)/something(or several things) other than just yourself, but
unless you do this, your full spell defense is used to protect you at all times.

Well, I wasn't off base, there was just some confusion with somantics. :)
Thanks for the clarification! :)

(unfortunately, I am not sure if consciousness is required for spell defense to
work on one's self. Does anyone have an official ruling on this?)


>I'm halfway through the third book of that trilogy now, and loving it..
>Definitely the best of the Shadowrun fiction I've read so far.

I read them as they came out years ago...I loved them...that's why I decided to
start reading the rest of the fiction that has come out since then (which I am
slowly doing). I think that the trilogy was the best I have read so far in
reference to actual quality. Great plot!


Justin :)

_______________________________________________________________
(jpinnow@*****.edu)

Geek Code (version 2.1):

G!>ED d----(d+/d++$) H s-: !g p? au
a23 w+(+++) v?(*)>!v C+(++) U- 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++

It all starts from within you.
Message no. 19
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: spell defense
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 10:06:17 -0400
On Mon, 10 Jul 1995, Justin Pinnow wrote:

> You could very well be correct. I may have based my knowledge on something
> else. I know that that novels sometimes deal with spell defense differently
> than what you explained...perhaps that's where I formulated some of my
> opinions. (In the opening trilogy, Sam was blasted with a fireball from
> behind...didn't expect it, but lived....it was later discovered that spell
> defense was what saved his butt--even though at the time he was not a trained
> shaman, much less someone who knew what spell defense was (not to mention how
> to use it)).

Actually, I remember reading in one of the rule books (probably
the main one) that spell defense could be used in defense against
surprise magical attack if the target was a mage. The rationale was that
any un-allocated, left-over defense dice would be automatically used.
Unfortunately, I can't cite a page number or even a rough place to look
for it (other than the obvious "Spell Defense dice" section, that is).

Marc
Message no. 20
From: "Brian A. Stewart" <bstewart@***.UUG.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject: Spell Defense
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 10:02:40 -0700
My group solved the confusion about spell defense in this way:

When surprised mages---and anyone else with spell defense capabilities,
including those who are not aware of their abilities---automatically
defended themselves with half their magic pool (they had no choice, it is an
automatic reaction). When aware they could select how much defense they
wanted to use. Initiates are exactly the same, to use their metamagic
ability, Sheilding, they must be aware of the danger.

This leads to some concern when they mage is unconcious (either sleeping or
wounded), do they defend? We ruled that yes they still defend (the
automatic reaction is do to the nature of their aura, which a concious/aware
mage can minipulate and reduce or increase the defense) at half their magic
pool. Thus healing an unconcious mage is more difficult, but with stim
patches, cold water, smelling salts you can usually awaken the mage enough
so they can drop their defense.

What about if the mage is suffering from a psychosis, or is catatonic, or
having a seizure? Pitty the mage who needs healing in those conditions.
These rules may not be for everyone, but they worked for us.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Pa
lm speaks red to bent back,
Till flesh answers with angry words.
And worlds crumble,
And children scream,
And footsteps play alien keys;
In the hollow night.
Behind family doors, the eyes close.

-BAS (excerpt from Footsteps Play Alien Keys)
bstewart@***.uug.arizona.edu
Message no. 21
From: Sebastian Wiers <seb@***.RIPCO.COM>
Subject: Re: Spell Defense
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 13:20:41 -0500
>
> My group solved the confusion about spell defense in this way:
>
> When surprised mages---and anyone else with spell defense capabilities,
> including those who are not aware of their abilities---automatically
> defended themselves with half their magic pool (they had no choice, it is an
> automatic reaction). When aware they could select how much defense they
> wanted to use. Initiates are exactly the same, to use their metamagic
> ability, Sheilding, they must be aware of the danger.
>
Sounds reasonable, as it will leave the mage with some pool to act later if
s/he survives.

> This leads to some concern when they mage is unconcious (either sleeping or
> wounded), do they defend? We ruled that yes they still defend (the
> automatic reaction is do to the nature of their aura, which a concious/aware
> mage can minipulate and reduce or increase the defense) at half their magic
> pool. Thus healing an unconcious mage is more difficult, but with stim
> patches, cold water, smelling salts you can usually awaken the mage enough
> so they can drop their defense.
>
> What about if the mage is suffering from a psychosis, or is catatonic, or
> having a seizure? Pitty the mage who needs healing in those conditions.
> These rules may not be for everyone, but they worked for us.

Healing is not a resisted spell, so why worry. I don't think it even requires
a voluntary target. (good thing, since you can heal deadly wounds).
Message no. 22
From: Justin Pinnow <jpinnow@***.IM.MED.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: spell defense
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 14:31:28 -0400
I wrote:

>>Well, I am not sure if there is a contradiction between the rules and the
>>novel example cited in reference to spell defense. It seems it was just a
>>confusion in terminology. I can't speak as to the other problems, however.

Guy Swartwood wrote:

>Confusion or contradiction- I don't think that matters, I view books as a
>poor way to make or decide game mechanics. I read some of the FASA books and
>thought 'hey, that would be neat to do' and then try to figure out the game
>mechanics from SR and realize - 'hey, it can't be done and make it legal or
>as good'.


I understand and agree. The example cited above, however, doesn't support the
"read the book, now let's integrate it into the rules" syndrome.

The confusion is directly related to the SR II rules. (the confusion comes
from the action of "allocating" one's spell defense.) Thus, the rules were
confusing, I couldn't find anything in the rules going either way, so I cited a
novel. I know that's not the best way to do things, but I don't see how it's
any worse than a house ruling.

Please feel free to correct any of this information if you find game related
information stating something otherwise.


Justin :)

_______________________________________________________________
(jpinnow@*****.edu)

Geek Code (version 2.1):

G!>ED d----(d+/d++$) H s-: !g p? au
a23 w+(+++) v?(*)>!v C+(++) U- 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++

It all starts from within you.
Message no. 23
From: Steve Kenson <TalonMail@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Spell Defense
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 11:49:50 -0500
Justin Pinnow <jpinnow@*****.EDU> writes:
>I am curious as to HOW the party Mage knows that members
>of his party are being targeted by a spell. I haven't seen anything
>that requires astral perception to be active in order to utilize spell
>defense/shielding dice. Could it be that by allocating those dice, you
>are somehow becoming aware of spells targeted at anyone within your line
>of sight?

That's pretty much the way I handle it (YMMV): when a magician allocates some
of his Magic Pool for Spell Defense or Shielding, it creates a kind of
"astral network" around the area he wishes to protect. The magician can sense
any "pressure" against this net from an incoming spell and has a split-second
to "shift" his defenses to a particular point (ie. allocate dice) to defend
against the spell, somewhat like a parry/counterattack in melee combat. I
also play it that active Spell Defense (allocated dice) is visible to
magicians in astral space as a faint shimmer of the magician's "shields"
extended around the protected area.

Hope that helps,
Steve
Message no. 24
From: Justin Pinnow <jpinnow@*****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Spell Defense
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 13:47:22 -0500
Steve Kenson wrote:

<Snip>

> That's pretty much the way I handle it (YMMV): when a magician allocates some
> of his Magic Pool for Spell Defense or Shielding, it creates a kind of
> "astral network" around the area he wishes to protect. The magician can
sense
> any "pressure" against this net from an incoming spell and has a
split-second
> to "shift" his defenses to a particular point (ie. allocate dice) to defend
> against the spell, somewhat like a parry/counterattack in melee combat. I
> also play it that active Spell Defense (allocated dice) is visible to
> magicians in astral space as a faint shimmer of the magician's "shields"
> extended around the protected area.

Cool idea. One question: the area protected (potentially protected) is
anywhere within the line of sight of the mage...do you have that large
of an area lit up on the astral?

> Hope that helps,
> Steve

Thanks,

Justin :)
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Justin Pinnow
jpinnow@*****.edu
Message no. 25
From: Steve Kenson <TalonMail@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Spell Defense
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 09:31:08 -0500
>One question: the area protected (potentially protected) is
>anywhere within the line of sight of the mage...do you have that large
>of an area lit up on the astral?

Yes and no. The rule of thumb I use for a spellworm determining if an
area/target is under the protection of another magician with astral
perception is a TN equal to (12 minus the number of dice allocated to
potentially defend that subject). So, for example, if Bubba the street mage
throws 4 of his pool dice into Spell Defense that turn and Zeb the corporate
wage-mage is assening the runners before throwing a spell at them, Zeb can
make an Astral Perception (8) Test to sense Bubba's defenses are up, and
modify his actions accordingly. If Budda's chummer Gus the shaman was adding
his spell defense into the "pot" to protect the runners with five additional
dice, then Zeb's TN to notice the protections in place would only be
(12-(4+5)) or TN 3.

IMHO, Spell Defense does not "light up" astral space, but causes
"ripples" or
"shimmers" that can be detected. It's not the same effect as throwing a spell
or calling a spirit. Again, YMMV.

Steve
Message no. 26
From: Ashelock <woneal@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Spell Defense
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 01:32:00 -0005
On 6 Jan 97 at 9:31, Steve Kenson wrote:

> >One question: the area protected (potentially protected) is
> >anywhere within the line of sight of the mage...do you have that large
> >of an area lit up on the astral?
>
> Yes and no. The rule of thumb I use for a spellworm determining if an
> area/target is under the protection of another magician with astral
> perception is a TN equal to (12 minus the number of dice allocated to
> potentially defend that subject). So, for example, if Bubba the street mage
> throws 4 of his pool dice into Spell Defense that turn and Zeb the corporate
> wage-mage is assening the runners before throwing a spell at them, Zeb can
> make an Astral Perception (8) Test to sense Bubba's defenses are up, and
> modify his actions accordingly. If Budda's chummer Gus the shaman was adding
> his spell defense into the "pot" to protect the runners with five
additional
> dice, then Zeb's TN to notice the protections in place would only be
> (12-(4+5)) or TN 3.
>
> IMHO, Spell Defense does not "light up" astral space, but causes
"ripples" or
> "shimmers" that can be detected. It's not the same effect as throwing a
spell
> or calling a spirit. Again, YMMV.
>
> Steve

Works for me! To bad you couldn't have put this rule in Awakenings. I have a
question though... what about Astral Static, Background count and similar
things; would they make it harder to notice the spell defense? What I'm
thinking is the magical equivalent to say for example, the Enterprise hiding in
an ion cloud.
--
Ashelock
(woneal@*******.net)

"When the Man with the Hoe rises up to judge this world,
after the Silence of the centuries,
let him not find me lacking in merit."
Message no. 27
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Spell Defense
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 13:51:48 GMT
Steve Kenson writes

> Justin Pinnow <jpinnow@*****.EDU> writes:
> >I am curious as to HOW the party Mage knows that members
> >of his party are being targeted by a spell.
i say the mage has to see the spell, though theres nothing to stop
him alocating spell defense on 'i recon he will get hit'

This is where the 'noticing spellcasting rules' come in handy (as
well as a number of PC's that really whish spellcasting was
invisible, who died for getting caught while being covered). Astral
perception up though is almost automatic noticing.

> > I haven't seen anything
> >that requires astral perception to be active in order to utilize spell
> >defense/shielding dice. Could it be that by allocating those dice, you
> >are somehow becoming aware of spells targeted at anyone within your line
> >of sight?
>
> That's pretty much the way I handle it (YMMV): when a magician allocates some
> of his Magic Pool for Spell Defense or Shielding, it creates a kind of
> "astral network" around the area he wishes to protect. The magician can
sense
> any "pressure" against this net from an incoming spell and has a
split-second
> to "shift" his defenses to a particular point (ie. allocate dice) to defend
> against the spell, somewhat like a parry/counterattack in melee combat. I
> also play it that active Spell Defense (allocated dice) is visible to
> magicians in astral space as a faint shimmer of the magician's "shields"
> extended around the protected area.
>
> Hope that helps,
> Steve
>
Most interesting, and pretty much rules wise how i implement it in
practice. I had considered it invisible however, and unless you
specifically aloocate x dice to someone at your action i don't allow
your 'detect the pressure of the spell' style thing.

For the record the SR2 'official' rules are a another respondent said
'you allocate spell defence in the reac infinity refresh and allocate
dice pools part of an action phase, x dice you you, y dice to him
etc. i have never seen this enforced however it would at the least
slow down combat as the mage is forced to list his defebce
allocations at every action to suit circumstances.
Same in some ways as i only once enforced the 'state intentions'
phase of the combat round when an interpartyu fight broke out at HB
'the bridge part1' again because it doubles the time required for a
combat round.


Mark
Message no. 28
From: Steve Kenson <TalonMail@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Spell Defense
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 10:09:45 -0500
On Thu, 9 Jan 1997 Ashelock <woneal@*******.NET> wrote:
>Works for me! To bad you couldn't have put this rule in Awakenings. I have
a

>question though... what about Astral Static, Background count and similar

>things; would they make it harder to notice the spell defense? What I'm

>thinking is the magical equivalent to say for example, the Enterprise
hiding in

>an ion cloud.

Too bad I couldn't have gotten a number of rules in Awakenings, but, as the
only SR sourcebook to be worked on under THREE different developers, I think
it came out pretty well.

IMHO, yes, all of the normal astral perception modifiers (including
background count and astral static) would apply to noticing if a magician
were using Spell Defense in the area being scanned.

Steve
Message no. 29
From: Mongoose <m0ng005e@*********.COM>
Subject: Spell Defense?
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 13:56:40 -0600
:Say Floating Error stands in the middle of a group of other
:friends (just call them buds), a group of 4 in the whole. Evil Corp Mage
:casts Fireball into the crowd and Drippy Finger helps his bud by giving
:him all 4 Spell Defense dice. Corp Mages has 3 Successes, Drippy Finger
:has 4 during the Spell Defense roll. Now is the Spell dispelled and no
:one will get hit? Or does only Floating Error sigh in relief while the
:other scream in agony?

The spell targets everybody in its area of effect. In SR2, the
defense
dice helped the resistance test of whomever they were assigned to- FE's
buds are on their own. In SR3, spell defense dice are rolled against
spell force, canceling successes, allowing better protection against area
spells, but that still only works for the people the mage allocated
protection to- the buds in this case are still SOL, and face all the
successes, afaik.

:even if Drippy Finger has "shielded" everyone in that group with
:Floating Error, what is with the Kerosin that is pouring out of that
:barrel at their feet?

Well, it would be normal, un-defended hydrocarbon fuel,
though I think there is still a test involved (easy to make, in this
case...)

Mongoose
Message no. 30
From: Michael Coleman mscoleman@********.net
Subject: Spell Defense
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:14:47 -0600
Can spell defense be detected in astral? Say you assence someone
before you cast a spell on them can the casting mage detect whether
the target (a mundane) is being protected by spell defense.


Mike
Message no. 31
From: HHackerH@***.com HHackerH@***.com
Subject: Spell Defense
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 18:46:49 EST
In a message dated 3/13/00 5:15:12 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
mscoleman@********.net writes:

>
> Can spell defense be detected in astral? Say you assence someone
> before you cast a spell on them can the casting mage detect whether
> the target (a mundane) is being protected by spell defense.
>
IMO, yes. It might require of course a specific "I'm assensing for anyone
using magic in the area" or something similar though. Personally, I would
think that if someone were assensing the individual that is being "defended",
that some aspect of the usage of Sorcery/Spell Pool would be perceivable at
least.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-K
-"Just a Bastard"
-Hoosier Hacker House
"Children of the Kernel"
[http://members.aol.com/hhackerh/index.html]
Message no. 32
From: Michael Coleman mscoleman@********.net
Subject: Spell Defense
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 05:57:29 -0600
>> Can spell defense be detected in astral? Say you assence someone
>> before you cast a spell on them can the casting mage detect
whether
>> the target (a mundane) is being protected by spell defense.
>
>IMO, yes. It might require of course a specific "I'm assensing for
anyone
using magic in the area" or something similar though. Personally, I
would
think that if someone were assensing the individual that is being
"defended",
that some aspect of the usage of Sorcery/Spell Pool would be
perceivable at
least.
>K

OK, now what would it look like? And would it be automatically seen
and recognized or would you have to roll an assensing test or
perception test to recognized it? And could the defender Mask his
spell defense?

Mike
Message no. 33
From: HHackerH@***.com HHackerH@***.com
Subject: Spell Defense
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:13:20 EST
In a message dated 3/14/00 6:57:49 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
mscoleman@********.net writes:

>
> OK, now what would it look like? And would it be automatically seen
> and recognized or would you have to roll an assensing test or
> perception test to recognized it? And could the defender Mask his
> spell defense?

Okay, now you are getting into a bunch of things that to me at least sound
like individually specific queries.

For instance:

What would it look like???? Okay, you tell me. Would be a shield of
cracklin' lightnin' shimmerin' roun' the person? Would it be the carressing
protection of hands of "Our Holy Father" (the little desk-size statue of a
pair of praying hands comes to mind for some reason)? Would it be an
enwrapping coccoon of shimmering silk?

You tell me...

Would it be automatically seen? I don't think so, perhaps at least 1 or 2
successes on an Astral Perception test at least. I do so *HATE* the term
"Automatic" in Shadowrun.

Would it be recognized? If you saw it, sure. However, if the astral
perceiving individual were unfamiliar with such things (an adept or critter
with Dual Nature for instance), then perhaps some kind of Intelligence roll
might be in order.

And could the defender Mask his own spell defense??? Hmmm... I don't believe
so according to the rules, as *ACTIVE* uses of Masking (presuming the
initiated ability here) is considered an exclusive action IIRC. BUT, another
individual could Mask the activities for the defending magician in question
... at least, in theory.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-K
-"Just a Bastard"
-Hoosier Hacker House
"Children of the Kernel"
[http://members.aol.com/hhackerh/index.html]
Message no. 34
From: tb33537 tb33537@***.edu
Subject: Spell Defense
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:07:40 -0600
Don't quote me on it but I believe that you have to have the skill Aura
reading before you are able to interpret the actions of a mage and be
able to copy what they do. As for being able to read if that person is
defending I don't think so though there are no rules about it it would
be up to the GM
Message no. 35
From: Manolis Skoulikas greatworm@*****.com
Subject: Spell Defense
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:23:39 +0200
tb33537 wrote:
>
> Don't quote me on it but I believe that you have to have the skill Aura
> reading before you are able to interpret the actions of a mage and be
> able to copy what they do. As for being able to read if that person is
> defending I don't think so though there are no rules about it it would
> be up to the GM

I agree with you on that one after some deliberation since spell defence
only acts as an astral watch, a kind of delayed protection, not an
active projection of power until the time comes.

The Wiz

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Spell Defense, 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!