Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Spell Design Questions
Date: Mon May 14 20:45:01 2001
I was wondering. What would be the Drain code for a spell that gives
someone/something vehicle or naval status? Along with that, would be the
drain code for vehicle armor or bulwark (naval armor)? And how would you
handle mixing with normal armor?

What about for a spell that duplicates the effect of a fully automatic
autocannon? Would it just be a damaging manipulation with drain equal to
+2(damage level) with perhaps +1 or +2 to the drain level as if it were
an Area spell or Extended Area spell, respectively. (Perhaps +1 for burst
fire, and +2 for FA?) Also, a +1 level for Elemental Manipulation?
Assuming the worst, that would be +2(Damage level +3). Sound good? What
if I want the damage to be vehicle or naval scale?

--
D. Ghost
Profanity is the one language all programmers know best
- Troutman's 6th programming postulate.
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (BD)
Subject: Spell Design Questions
Date: Mon May 14 21:15:02 2001
> I was wondering. What would be the Drain code for a spell that gives
> someone/something vehicle or naval status? Along with that, would be the
> drain code for vehicle armor or bulwark (naval armor)? And how would you
> handle mixing with normal armor?
>
> What about for a spell that duplicates the effect of a fully automatic
> autocannon? Would it just be a damaging manipulation with drain equal to
> +2(damage level) with perhaps +1 or +2 to the drain level as if it were
> an Area spell or Extended Area spell, respectively. (Perhaps +1 for burst
> fire, and +2 for FA?) Also, a +1 level for Elemental Manipulation?
> Assuming the worst, that would be +2(Damage level +3). Sound good? What
> if I want the damage to be vehicle or naval scale?
>
> D. Ghost

*Boondocker puts a hand out, palm facing the three large characters lined
up outside the list's door.*

"I'm sorry sirs, we won't need to see you today... yes, I realize you're
a Blood Mage with Trauma Damper and delta-ware... yes, and you sir, that's
very a nice chrome finish on your entire body... and I do see you hopping
around with your Power Focus 12 back there, ma'am, you can stop. The fact
is, sirs and madam, we've already got our list munchkin -- the position was
filled long ago. I'm really very sorry. Thank you for coming."


;) < j/k! >

====-Boondocker

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (John Pederson)
Subject: Spell Design Questions
Date: Mon May 14 21:20:01 2001
Just sent my books home Saturday, but let me take a shot at this, and
everyone else can correct me or shout me down later.

dghost@****.com wrote:

> I was wondering. What would be the Drain code for a spell that gives
> someone/something vehicle or naval status?


Sounds like a pretty major change, so:
Normal -> Vehicle: M
Vehicle -> Naval: M
Normal -> Naval: S
Physical: +1

You'll probably want to induce some notable limitations: the spell only
hardens existing (non-living) armor, it doesn't increase the value of
that armor and doesn't affect things like Dermal armor. Probably ought
to use the highest value of either the armor (balllistic, impact, or
vehicle) rating, or the value from the Object Resistance Table (SR does
still use that, right?). Please keep in mind that I don't own a copy of
either Rigger 3 or Cyberpirates, so my understanding of 'naval' armor
is... sketchy, at best.

> Along with that, would be the
> drain code for vehicle armor or bulwark (naval armor)?


I'm not sure I understand the difference between this question and the
previous one.

> And how would you
> handle mixing with normal armor?


Use the layering rules to determine an overall rating, treating vehicle
armor as hardened armor of either type. Rounds only penetrate if the
power exceeds the highest hardened armor value, so track that, too.
You're on your own regarding naval armor.


> What about for a spell that duplicates the effect of a fully automatic
> autocannon? Would it just be a damaging manipulation with drain equal to
> +2(damage level) with perhaps +1 or +2 to the drain level as if it were
> an Area spell or Extended Area spell, respectively. (Perhaps +1 for burst
> fire, and +2 for FA?) Also, a +1 level for Elemental Manipulation?
> Assuming the worst, that would be +2(Damage level +3). Sound good?


I think a Combat Spell would probably make more sense. Autocannons do
not usually have elemental effects, right? Why would it have an Area
effect (is there something I'm missing about autocannons?)

> What
> if I want the damage to be vehicle or naval scale?

Doing damage on a naval scale sounds like the sort of thing that
requires hefty mojo. At least, I don't think I want mages to be able to
conduct shore bombardment with a rowboat and a pair of binoculars.

--
John Pederson
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Sebastian Wiers)
Subject: Spell Design Questions
Date: Mon May 14 22:30:01 2001
>I was wondering. What would be the Drain code for a spell that gives
>someone/something vehicle or naval status?

How would you do that? Those are abstact concepts representing a vheicle or
ships large size (so bullets make small holes) mass (better to absorb
damage) and structural materials. Are you saying the spell would actually
increase the size / mass of the taget and turn it into metal? If not, where
are the improved damage resiting characteristics coming from?

>Along with that, would be the
>drain code for vehicle armor or bulwark (naval armor)? And how would you
>handle mixing with normal armor?

A barrier spell effectively is vehicle armor. Its not as good against small
arms, but simply using the spell at higher force would solve that.

>What about for a spell that duplicates the effect of a fully automatic
>autocannon? Would it just be a damaging manipulation with drain equal to
>+2(damage level) with perhaps +1 or +2 to the drain level as if it were
>an Area spell or Extended Area spell, respectively. (Perhaps +1 for burst
>fire, and +2 for FA?) Also, a +1 level for Elemental Manipulation?

You could just make it a dmaging manipulation, yeah. Those don't need to
use elemental effects. The power would just be Force- theres no FA for
spells. If you want it to do damage like FA, cast it at a higher force.
IIRC, you can't use Extended Area for manipulation spells, its only offered
for Detection spells.

>Assuming the worst, that would be +2(Damage level +3). Sound good? What
>if I want the damage to be vehicle or naval scale?

Jack the force through the roof, and then just treat it like any other
spell. Force 32 would be pow 16 against vehicles, just like an
anti-vehicular rail cannon or something.

-Mongoose
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Spell Design Questions
Date: Mon May 14 23:10:13 2001
On Mon, 14 May 2001 21:57:21 -0500 "Sebastian Wiers" <m0ng005e@*****.com>
writes:
> >I was wondering. What would be the Drain code for a spell that
> gives
> >someone/something vehicle or naval status?

> How would you do that? Those are abstact concepts representing a
> vheicle or
> ships large size (so bullets make small holes) mass (better to
> absorb
> damage) and structural materials. Are you saying the spell would
> actually
> increase the size / mass of the taget and turn it into metal? If
> not, where
> are the improved damage resiting characteristics coming from?

A body 1 vehicle is still a vehicle and is smaller than a troll but gets
an automatic -1 damage level against non-anti-vehicle weapons. I don't
really care where the improved damage resistance is coming from. I am
currently concerned with what the drain code would have to be.

> >Along with that, would be the
> >drain code for vehicle armor or bulwark (naval armor)? And how
> would you
> >handle mixing with normal armor?

> A barrier spell effectively is vehicle armor. Its not as good
> against small
> arms, but simply using the spell at higher force would solve that.

Nope. It wouldn't. The lower damage resistance T# is spiffy and all, but
so is the, effectively, 2 free successes.

> >What about for a spell that duplicates the effect of a fully
> automatic
> >autocannon? Would it just be a damaging manipulation with drain
> equal to
> >+2(damage level) with perhaps +1 or +2 to the drain level as if it
> were
> >an Area spell or Extended Area spell, respectively. (Perhaps +1 for
> burst
> >fire, and +2 for FA?) Also, a +1 level for Elemental Manipulation?

> You could just make it a dmaging manipulation, yeah. Those don't
> need to
> use elemental effects. The power would just be Force- theres no FA
> for
> spells. If you want it to do damage like FA, cast it at a higher
> force.
> IIRC, you can't use Extended Area for manipulation spells, its only
> offered
> for Detection spells.
<SNIP>

Check again. Extended Area applies to Detection and Manipuation. And I
know there's no FA/BF mods for damaging manipulations. That's why I was
trying to MAKE one ... With simply a raised Force/Damage Level, you can't
duplicate spreading a burst accross multiple targets ...

--
D. Ghost
Profanity is the one language all programmers know best
- Troutman's 6th programming postulate.
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 6
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Spell Design Questions
Date: Tue May 15 04:55:01 2001
dghost@****.com writes:

> A body 1 vehicle is still a vehicle and is smaller than a troll but gets
> an automatic -1 damage level against non-anti-vehicle weapons. I don't
> really care where the improved damage resistance is coming from. I am
> currently concerned with what the drain code would have to be.

I think the point was that you're somewhat trying to break the game
mechanics by doing what you are doing.

> And I know there's no FA/BF mods for damaging manipulations. That's why I
> was trying to MAKE one ... With simply a raised Force/Damage Level, you
> can't duplicate spreading a burst accross multiple targets ...

There are rules in SR3 for casting a single spell at multiple targets, and
casting multiple spells in a single Complex Action. Either of these will do
what you require quite well.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a24 C++ US++>+++ P+ L++>+++ E- W+>++ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@
M-- V- PS+ PE(-) Y+>++ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X++>+++ R+(++) !tv(--) b+ DI+++@
D G+ e++>++++$ h(*) r++ y-(--)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 7
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Spell Design Questions
Date: Tue May 15 17:00:25 2001
On Tue, 15 May 2001 18:57:03 +1000 (EST) Damion Milliken
<dam01@***.edu.au> writes:
> dghost@****.com writes:
>
> > A body 1 vehicle is still a vehicle and is smaller than a troll
> > but gets
> > an automatic -1 damage level against non-anti-vehicle weapons. I
> > don't
> > really care where the improved damage resistance is coming from. I
> > am
> > currently concerned with what the drain code would have to be.

> I think the point was that you're somewhat trying to break the game
> mechanics by doing what you are doing.

I don't really think so. It's not too important though. I just wanted to
make a spell to go with a NPC's stats.

> > And I know there's no FA/BF mods for damaging manipulations.
> > That's why I
> > was trying to MAKE one ... With simply a raised Force/Damage
> > Level, you
> > can't duplicate spreading a burst accross multiple targets ...

> There are rules in SR3 for casting a single spell at multiple
> targets, and
> casting multiple spells in a single Complex Action. Either of these
> will do
> what you require quite well.

Think so? What's the target number modifier for a 10 round burst fired at
10 targets done your way? It's worse than uncompensated FA fire from an
assault rifle... :)

--
D. Ghost
Profanity is the one language all programmers know best
- Troutman's 6th programming postulate.
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 8
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Sebastian Wiers)
Subject: Spell Design Questions
Date: Wed May 16 00:20:31 2001
>> >I was wondering. What would be the Drain code for a spell that
>> gives
>> >someone/something vehicle or naval status?
>
>> How would you do that? Those are abstact concepts representing a
>> vheicle or
>> ships large size (so bullets make small holes) mass (better to
>> absorb
>> damage) and structural materials. Are you saying the spell would
>> actually
>> increase the size / mass of the taget and turn it into metal? If
>> not, where
>> are the improved damage resiting characteristics coming from?
>
>A body 1 vehicle is still a vehicle and is smaller than a troll but gets
>an automatic -1 damage level against non-anti-vehicle weapons. I don't
>really care where the improved damage resistance is coming from. I am
>currently concerned with what the drain code would have to be.

Yes, but I don't think you can have a manipulation spell that creates ONLY a
game effect, with no explantion as to what the "game world" change is. And
its hard to see where the game effect would come from- there are spells that
make things tougher (re-inforce, iirc), but those don't have any effect like
what your proposing. So I think the question of "how does the spell work"
is quite germain- in fact, its the basis of how drain is calculated.

Theres also the question of, what would the effect be if it worked? A man
sized vehicle has a body of 2 - is that what you are proposing the spell
should do? Or would it work like "petrify"- a person turned to stone might
reasonably resist damage like a vehicle (probably bod 3, with a good heap of
armor), although that's not what the spell says to do.

>> >Along with that, would be the
>> >drain code for vehicle armor or bulwark (naval armor)? And how
>> would you
>> >handle mixing with normal armor?
>
>> A barrier spell effectively is vehicle armor. Its not as good
>> against small
>> arms, but simply using the spell at higher force would solve that.
>
>Nope. It wouldn't. The lower damage resistance T# is spiffy and all, but
>so is the, effectively, 2 free successes.

Vehicle armor does not do that. A vheilce with no armor still resits
against 1/2 power and one less damage level. Vehicle armor just reduces the
power even more.

>> >What about for a spell that duplicates the effect of a fully
>> automatic
>> >autocannon? Would it just be a damaging manipulation with drain
>> equal to
>> >+2(damage level) with perhaps +1 or +2 to the drain level as if it
>> were
>> >an Area spell or Extended Area spell, respectively. (Perhaps +1 for
>> burst
>> >fire, and +2 for FA?) Also, a +1 level for Elemental Manipulation?
>
>> You could just make it a dmaging manipulation, yeah. Those don't
>> need to
>> use elemental effects. The power would just be Force- theres no FA
>> for
>> spells. If you want it to do damage like FA, cast it at a higher
>> force.
>> IIRC, you can't use Extended Area for manipulation spells, its only
>> offered
>> for Detection spells.
><SNIP>

>Check again. Extended Area applies to Detection and Manipuation.

IIRC means I did not check. ;-)
When I did check, it seems to apply to Illusion and Manipulation -Extended
Sense is a different modifier. To me that suggests it could be applied to
"environmental" manipulations, like "Darkness", but applying it to a
Damaging Manipulation... Its over the top, even if its technically legal.

>And I
>know there's no FA/BF mods for damaging manipulations. That's why I was
>trying to MAKE one ... With simply a raised Force/Damage Level, you can't
>duplicate spreading a burst accross multiple targets ...

Multiple spell castings as one complex action would be the way to go there
BTB, but I see your point- it would be nice if you could design a spell to
target multiple individuals, not just an area or a (sinlge) individual.
However, I can also see why its not allowed- it certainly should not be
easy, drain wise, and it should be (much) harder to achieve a good effect by
doing so. I think the net result would be the same as multiple spell
castings as one complex action...

-Mongoose
Message no. 9
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Spell Design Questions
Date: Wed May 16 11:10:01 2001
dghost@****.com writes:

> > There are rules in SR3 for casting a single spell at multiple targets,
> > and casting multiple spells in a single Complex Action. Either of these
> > will do what you require quite well.
>
> Think so? What's the target number modifier for a 10 round burst fired at
> 10 targets done your way? It's worse than uncompensated FA fire from an
> assault rifle... :)

At the risk of sounding like TopCat ... Big fragging deal. Magic isn't the
placebo that solves and answers everything, so accept the fact that often
times physical, mundane solutions are better.

OTOH, from a less abrasive perspective (:-)), if you're carrying around a 2m
long cannon, you can burst 10 targets (at +2 per additional target, I remind
you). If you're packing nothing more than your mind and eyeballs, then you
may just have to expect to pay a larger penalty for busting up 10 targets in
one go. I think that this is perfectly reasonable.

At the risk of sounding like TopCat again :-) ... Magic is already pretty
powerful, it can do things that technology is incapable of. Occasionally,
technological solutions are better, and there's nothing wrong with this
being true. Magic is powerful, can do many things, but is not ultimately
powerful and cannot do _everything_.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a24 C++ US++>+++ P+ L++>+++ E- W+>++ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@
M-- V- PS+ PE(-) Y+>++ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X++>+++ R+(++) !tv(--) b+ DI+++@
D G+ e++>++++$ h(*) r++ y-(--)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 10
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Spell Design Questions
Date: Thu May 17 02:45:06 2001
On Thu, 17 May 2001 01:13:51 +1000 (EST) Damion Milliken
<dam01@***.edu.au> writes:
<SNIP>
> At the risk of sounding like TopCat again :-) ... Magic is already
> pretty
> powerful, it can do things that technology is incapable of.
> Occasionally,
> technological solutions are better, and there's nothing wrong with
> this
> being true. Magic is powerful, can do many things, but is not
> ultimately
> powerful and cannot do _everything_.

I'm not sure about that. I'm looking for some way to include a scale of
power not normally wieldable by metahumans (PCs in particular). I like
using magic as a force of nature and having beings that are more
inherently tied to that force to be able to produce effects well beyond
what metahumans are capable.

This particular inquiry was concerning an NPC (Isn't great not having
players on the list? ;)). As a spirit with the Sorcery power, working out
the drain code was sort of just a formality. Although, I did want to do
it to also see if Sorcery power need to be revised ... I mean, what's
preventing Spirits from running around lobbing DN hellblasts left and
right? Certainly not drain ... I've been thinking about restricting
spirits to casting spells with drain target numbers equal to or less than
their Force plus one, with the drain target number increased by one per
level above light ... I'm a little hesitant about limiting a free
spirit's ability to manipulate magic since it goes against the first
paragraph. :)

Oh well. :)

--
D. Ghost
Profanity is the one language all programmers know best
- Troutman's 6th programming postulate.
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 11
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Spell Design Questions
Date: Thu May 17 10:15:01 2001
dghost@****.com writes:

> I'm not sure about that. I'm looking for some way to include a scale of
> power not normally wieldable by metahumans (PCs in particular). I like
> using magic as a force of nature and having beings that are more
> inherently tied to that force to be able to produce effects well beyond
> what metahumans are capable.

In that case, then perhaps you don't really even need definite game
mechanics for it. The NPC in question can just have a "Make 'Ard" spell,
which will do want you want. Roll a few dice, treat things as thereafter
being vehicular in nature (to represent their supernatural 'ardness with
handy game mechanics), and off you go.

> I mean, what's preventing Spirits from running around lobbing DN
> hellblasts left and right? Certainly not drain

Yeah, in principle, probably not much, I agree. But on the other hand, I
guess we can say "what's to stop PCs from running around in military grade
armour blowing everything sky high with assault cannons?" too. In theory,
nothing - such things exist and work in just that way. In practice,
annoying little inconveniences like society get in the way and try to stop
you. Perhaps there are other limiting factors for free spirits. Karma is
certainly a big one, those critters don't get much of that. They might be
able to cast spells without drain, but not too many of them will have a
grimoire half as big as the average shadowrunner. It's also somewhat
distinctive casting huge force fireballs left right and center, which may
well be counterproductive if you're a free spirit. The last thing they want
is somebody to twig in on the fact and bind them.

> I've been thinking about restricting spirits to casting spells with drain
> target numbers equal to or less than their Force plus one, with the drain
> target number increased by one per level above light ... I'm a little
> hesitant about limiting a free spirit's ability to manipulate magic since
> it goes against the first paragraph. :)

Well, assuming that you're not a munchking GM <grin>, then you can probably
sanely limit yourself to reasonable use of such things, and not really have
the need to formalise game mechanics. Game mechanics that only have impact
on the GM side of things are somewhat dubious, in my opinion (like the
enemies rules). Much better is to have guidelines, and let the GM just
decide, within reason, what happens. Less dice rolling, less rules
referencing, less rules to know, less rules to read, oh gee, I'm starting to
sound like a lazy GM, aren't I? But I do think that such rules are less
important to a GM than things like plotline, game world setting, and other
story elements.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a24 C++ US++>+++ P+ L++>+++ E- W+>++ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@
M-- V- PS+ PE(-) Y+>++ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X++>+++ R+(++) !tv(--) b+ DI+++@
D G+ e++>++++$ h(*) r++ y-(--)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 12
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Spell Design Questions
Date: Thu May 17 15:05:01 2001
On Fri, 18 May 2001 00:18:55 +1000 (EST) Damion Milliken
<dam01@***.edu.au> writes:
<SNIP>
> Well, assuming that you're not a munchking GM <grin>, then you can
> probably
> sanely limit yourself to reasonable use of such things, and not
> really have
> the need to formalise game mechanics.
<SNIP>

Well, thing is that I occasionally allow, particularly trustworthy
players to play free spirits ... which is not to say that any have yet to
abuse the no drain rule ... In fact the only spell casting by a PC Free
Spirit was the casting of Silence to cover the impact of a sniper round
on a glass window. That was the nifty run where the PCs manage to get the
goods while avoiding a trap without stepping inside the target building.
:) ... I still feel a twinge of pride over that. :)

--
D. Ghost
Profanity is the one language all programmers know best
- Troutman's 6th programming postulate.
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Spell Design Questions, 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!