Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Philip Hayward <Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Subject: Re: Spell lock
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 11:17:15 -0000
Gurth writes:
> The problem for the recipient is that he/she cannot affect it. Mundanes can
> see it as in "the light that bounces off the spell lock falls into their
> eyes," but their minds just tell them it isn't there, so they see what they
> expect to see instead. That means the sam cannot remove it or turn it off
> without the help of a magician. Add that to the fact that on the astral
> plane he looks like someone carrying a halogen flashlight in the dark and he
> makes a tempting target for any opposing magicians *evil GM grin*

What types of magicians (or rather adepts) can switch spell locks on/off
etc.. this halogen flashlight, its not as bright as a magician with
magic of 6 surely, how easy to cover/ hide this light (I know this has
been asked before, I seem to recall a spell lock in the mouth debate when
joined. We have two methods of concealing them that seem to work,
surgically implanting (only works on magician who's aura is greater than
the spell lock or foci) and my shaman who keeps his covered by a pouch
of seeds - living matter blocks LOS and astral movement :)

We tend to have a fairly low karma game to keep skills / attributes
low, but this means spending karma on spell locks and quickenings is
ridiculous if they are as easily destroyed as the general opinion
on this lists suggests so we are looking for ways to protect them.

any suggestions, (we had considered a variation on wards?)

Phil
<Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Message no. 2
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Spell lock
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 21:59:25 +1000
Philip Hayward writes:

> What types of magicians (or rather adepts) can switch spell locks on/off

Any magically active person except physical adepts and conjuring adepts (and
those guys from the Germany sourcebook) can activate-deactivate a spell
lock, but they must be of the same tradition (hermetic or shamanic) as the
person who created the lock. But obviously only those who can cast spells
can actually make the things. Anyone (magically active or not) can place the
lock, but once it becomes active, only those with astral perception can
remove it (Hmm, raises an interesting question about some of the adepts,
since they don't have astral perception, then they theoretically won't be
able to see the lock, even though they are, by the rules, capable of
deactivating the lock).

> this halogen flashlight, its not as bright as a magician with magic of 6
> surely, how easy to cover/ hide this light (I know this has been asked
> before, I seem to recall a spell lock in the mouth debate when joined.

Actually, nowhere does it say just how obvious a spell lock is to an astral
observer. We all rule that they is very obvious, so that players are a little
more cautious before they spell lock those 6 + 4 Attribute spells to
themselves and all the other team members.

> We have two methods of concealing them that seem to work, surgically
> implanting (only works on magician who's aura is greater than the spell lock
> or foci) and my shaman who keeps his covered by a pouch of seeds - living
> matter blocks LOS and astral movement :)

Well, in the case of your game, that might be an OK ruling, since it is a
low karma game. (Myself I can't really see the point, if you have low karma
game, yet have +4 Attribute spell locks which are going to stay forever
(more or less), then what is the difference between that and handing out a
few more karma so that stats can get that high anyway?). But anyhow, it
could be ruled, as it has just been discussed, that low-level living
organisms, such as seeds, do not have enough of an aura to block spells
(similar to bacteria in the air). And the other suggestion is that when a
magician attacks (or grounds through) a spell lock, he is not directly
attacking the actual lock. He is rather attacking the aura of the spell
lock, or the effects of the spell lock on the users aura (ie he targets the
different bit of the targets aura which he knows corresponds to an active
spell lock which is running a spell permanently). But I have just given you
ways to stuff up spell lock hiding techniques, rather than methods of hiding
the damn things. Masking works the best by far, go spend a couple of karma
to become an initiate, and you'll be able to hide spell locks without a
hassle (well, a couple at a time anyway). Other than that, I don't really
have any suggestion on how to hide spell locks, I've never thought about it
(too busy finding ways to hit that damn things when they're hidden :-)). If
you want to, you could rule that it actually requires a perception test from
astral space to see them in the first place. Or if you really want to, you
could design a spell to mask the lock (but I wouldn't, as it supercedes a
metamagical ability - a bad thing to do in my view. Not to mention that it
would be a spell which had effects on astral entities and made them
invisible, which is impossible as far as I can tell by the normal
rules). But, hey, it's your game.

--
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: Philip Hayward <Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Subject: Re: Spell lock
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 15:45:50 -0000
Damion writes:
>
> Actually, nowhere does it say just how obvious a spell lock is to an astral
> observer. We all rule that they is very obvious, so that players are a little
> more cautious before they spell lock those 6 + 4 Attribute spells to
> themselves and all the other team members.
>
>> We have two methods of concealing them that seem to work, surgically
>> implanting (only works on magician who's aura is greater than the spell lock
>> or foci) and my shaman who keeps his covered by a pouch of seeds - living
>> matter blocks LOS and astral movement :)
>
Yep, I would say that it sounds about right for a spell lock to require
a perception test or the implanted lock could be discovered by reading his
aura.

> Well, in the case of your game, that might be an OK ruling, since it is a
> low karma game. (Myself I can't really see the point, if you have low karma
> game, yet have +4 Attribute spell locks which are going to stay forever
> (more or less), then what is the difference between that and handing out a
> few more karma so that stats can get that high anyway?).

well we're not so fond of straight +x to a stat style lock and the locks
should not be permanent (thats for quickenings which cost more karma)
I just don't want people to lose them in incidental combats.
There should be a way to protect them if a mage goes to the trouble of
protecting them. If he just slaps it on fair enough he's flame bait.

> It could be ruled, as it has just been discussed, that low-level living
> organisms, such as seeds, do not have enough of an aura to block spells
> (similar to bacteria in the air). And the other suggestion is that when a
>
good point, that was my theory, I think the seeds should just add to the
perception test not block completely

> Masking works the best by far, go spend a couple of karma
> to become an initiate, and you'll be able to hide spell locks without a
> hassle (well, a couple at a time anyway).

Thats probably the course to take, I agree that using a spell to mask
them devalues the meta power, currently I have managed to get our
players in awe of initiates as our only mage is my shaman (not an initiate)
by the way i take in turns to GM which is why I GM and have a character
Since I've lent the grimoire to the other GM, would it be possible
to ask an initiate to mask a spell lock then leave it or is it only
masked as long as the initiate sustains it?

Phil
<Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Message no. 4
From: Philip Hayward <Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Subject: Re: spell lock
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 13:35:20 -0000
Okay, let me get this right the only person who can really use
a spell lock is an initaite because they can mask it? anyone else
loses it the next time they confront a mage or spirit.

Hmm, I'll live with it, have spell lock means lose spell lock
then again:

Initiate - masks it

Mage (anyone with magic rating) it needs a perception test to spot a
lock or foci, if you're rating is higher than that of the foci it should
be a high TN# (As you're brighter than the foci).

Mundanes or mages with a foci of a higher rating than their magic rating,
it needs a perception test with a low TN#, back to the halogen flash light.

Personally I might require an aura reading to spot the lock, still
very possible but it requires a complex action so it is less likely
to happen in the middle of combat.

Enough to stop anyone and everyone taking them out.

blocking the aura of the lock is silly now I think about it, it may
make it less hard to see on the astral but it would make it harder
to miss on the physical (instead of overlooking the lock you spot
whatever is covering it)

Phil
<Philip.hayward@***.UK>
Message no. 5
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: spell lock
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 15:34:04 -0500
On Fri, 24 Mar 1995, Philip Hayward wrote:

> Okay, let me get this right the only person who can really use
> a spell lock is an initaite because they can mask it? anyone else
> loses it the next time they confront a mage or spirit.

Not quite true. A mage can turn it off. While a spell lock is
inactive, it can NOT be targetted astrally. It is "safe" in this mode.
But then again, it's not helping you, either. Also remember that you can
allocate spell defense to a spell lock to help it fight off a spell.
This drastically increases their life expectancies.

Marc
Message no. 6
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: spell lock
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 19:36:36 +1000
Marc A Renouf writes:

> Also remember that you can allocate spell defense to a spell lock to help
> it fight off a spell.

I seem to remember this from somewhere myself, but upon doing a brief
literature search I cannot find the relevant ruling. Could you tell me
where it is?

--
Damion Milliken Unofficial Shadowrun Guru 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. 7
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: spell lock
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 12:12:43 +0100
>Okay, let me get this right the only person who can really use
>a spell lock is an initaite because they can mask it? anyone else
>loses it the next time they confront a mage or spirit.

Not quite. The bonus an initiate gets is that he can make the lock invisible
for others -- or at least for non-initiates. Don't expect to be able to mask
a lock from a grade 7 initiate, not unless you yourself are also around that
level. And yes, there aren't many of those around :)


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Our little group has always been and always will until the end
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?
One of Two Unofficial Shadowrun Gurus :)
Message no. 8
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Spell lock
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 13:49:05 +0100
> >> We have two methods of concealing them that seem to work, surgically
> >> implanting (only works on magician who's aura is greater than the spell lock
> >> or foci) and my shaman who keeps his covered by a pouch of seeds - living
> >> matter blocks LOS and astral movement :)
> >
> Yep, I would say that it sounds about right for a spell lock to require
> a perception test or the implanted lock could be discovered by reading his
> aura.

We had this discussion a couple of maonths back when Luke came up with that
cool post of his on making locks impregnable :) Anyway the ruling was (and its
prety logical if you ask me) that locks canot be "hidden" in the astral as
their aura mixes with the aura of the mage producing a new one that is always
in plain sight. Thusly locks are always visible for those who know what to look
for.

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

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+>++++ L+>+++ E--- N++ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 9
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: spell lock
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 14:22:47 +0100
> Okay, let me get this right the only person who can really use
> a spell lock is an initaite because they can mask it? anyone else
> loses it the next time they confront a mage or spirit.

Well thats a pretty cynical attitude, but yes thats the gist of it.
I think that a pretty cautious (read paranoid) mage could get away
with a couple of locks by percieving all the time and turning the
locks off when he sees anything potentialy dangerous in the astral.
The only other alternative is to stack them in a mega-focus that
effectively protects them from all astral attacks.

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

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+>++++ L+>+++ E--- N++ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 10
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: spell lock
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 14:42:06 +0100
> > Okay, let me get this right the only person who can really use
> > a spell lock is an initaite because they can mask it? anyone else
> > loses it the next time they confront a mage or spirit.
>
> Not quite true. A mage can turn it off. While a spell lock is
> inactive, it can NOT be targetted astrally. It is "safe" in this mode.
> But then again, it's not helping you, either. Also remember that you can
> allocate spell defense to a spell lock to help it fight off a spell.
> This drastically increases their life expectancies.

Could you give us a page and paragraph for that please ? Anyway I
doubt that spell defence is any good in this case, after all the lock
has only a force of 1. Shielding on the other hand should do it.

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

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+>++++ L+>+++ E--- N++ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 11
From: Eve Forward <lutra@******.COM>
Subject: Re: spell lock
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 08:33:27 -0800
Somone writes:

>> > Okay, let me get this right the only person who can really use
>> > a spell lock is an initaite because they can mask it? anyone else


I think it kinda depends on your campaign; how prevalent magic is and how
nasty your GM wants to be. I've played a mage in a very low-frequency
magic game, where magic was rare, much-sought-after, and not often seen,
and I could wear my spell locks with impunity.

Then again, wander into Adam's game with a spell lock and it doesn't matter
if you've got it concealed in the middle of The BFN Astral Plane, something
is going to SLAG you through it, and HARD, in a matter of minutes. Again,
I speak from experience.

A friend of mine also says he has a character who will assense from time to
time, and if he ever sees anyone with a spell lock, he breaks it, just
because he can.

Spell locks tend to make my mundanes nervous now. My mages will still have
them, but not "always-on" kinda things.

Just my $0.02

-E
Message no. 12
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: spell lock
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 11:17:11 +1000
Gurth writes:

> Not quite. The bonus an initiate gets is that he can make the lock invisible
> for others -- or at least for non-initiates.

Do you mean "for" or should it be "to"? An initiate can only mask his
own
aura, and hence only the foci he himself is carrying. He can't use his
masking power on another being to hide the fact that they have foci.

--
Damion Milliken Unofficial Shadowrun Guru 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: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: spell lock
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 13:16:43 +0200
>> Not quite. The bonus an initiate gets is that he can make the lock invisible
>> for others -- or at least for non-initiates.
>
>Do you mean "for" or should it be "to"? An initiate can only mask
his own

I meant "...invisible to others..." Guess it's a bit of Dutch creeping in :)


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Our little group has always been and always will until the end
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?
One of Two Unofficial Shadowrun Gurus :)
Message no. 14
From: Philip Hayward <Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Subject: Re: Spell lock
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 12:14:07 +6000
>>Yep, I would say that it sounds about right for a spell lock to require
>>a perception test or the implanted lock could be discovered by reading h is
>>aura.

> We had this discussion a couple of maonths back when Luke came up with that
> cool post of his on making locks impregnable :) Anyway the ruling was (and its
> prety logical if you ask me) that locks canot be "hidden" in the astral as
> their aura mixes with the aura of the mage producing a new one that is always
> in plain sight. Thus locks are always visible for those who know what to look
> for.

Sounds good, I can use it as a rationalisation for a perception test
or aura reading. However if their auras mix then you cannot
distinguish between the two when casting spells. you cannot
target the lock, but any spell hitting the mage, hits his lock as well
(possibly breaking it) furthermore being a single aura does any
spell defence dice the mage protects himself with -- protects his
foci/locks?
Message no. 15
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Spell lock
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 23:45:48 +1000
Philip Hayward writes:

> Sounds good, I can use it as a rationalisation for a perception test
> or aura reading. However if their auras mix then you cannot
> distinguish between the two when casting spells. you cannot
> target the lock, but any spell hitting the mage, hits his lock as well
> (possibly breaking it) furthermore being a single aura does any
> spell defence dice the mage protects himself with -- protects his
> foci/locks?

I would have said the auras "interact", not mix. Hence the problem solved.
You have two auras, affecting each other, but still separate from each other.

--
Damion Milliken Nominee for the title of _Shadowrun Guru_ 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: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Spell lock
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 16:23:25 +0200
> > Sounds good, I can use it as a rationalisation for a perception test
> > or aura reading. However if their auras mix then you cannot
> > distinguish between the two when casting spells. you cannot
> > target the lock, but any spell hitting the mage, hits his lock as well
> > (possibly breaking it) furthermore being a single aura does any
> > spell defence dice the mage protects himself with -- protects his
> > foci/locks?
>
> I would have said the auras "interact", not mix. Hence the problem solved.
> You have two auras, affecting each other, but still separate from each other.

How about, they mix when the focus is IN the body and they just interact when
its outside the body (the more conventional type). This would mean that you would
automagically (pun intended :) attack both lock/focus and wearer if the object
in question "shares" his aura (is inside his body).

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

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+>++++ L+>+++ E--- N++ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 17
From: Philip Hayward <Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Subject: Re: Spell lock
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 15:59:34 +6000
Damion "I'm a shadowrun guru" :) wrote:
>
>> Sounds good, I can use it as a rationalisation for a perception test
>> or aura reading. However if their auras mix then you cannot
>> distinguish between the two when casting spells. you cannot
>> target the lock, but any spell hitting the mage, hits his lock as well
>> (possibly breaking it) furthermore being a single aura does any
>> spell defence dice the mage protects himself with -- protects his
>> foci/locks?
>
> I would have said the auras "interact", not mix. Hence the problem solved.
> You have two auras, affecting each other, but still separate from each
> other.

Problem what problem? I wasn't thinking of it as a problem more as an
alternative, I might even try it in a game :} . Actually the more I
think about it the more I like it. A sam's cyberware becomes part of
him and his aura covers it when he pays essence for it, so why not
have something similar for foci when a mage pays karma for it.
Now, I suspect there would be a problem with it somewhere. Presumably
with mundanes wearing spell locks - no, the spell lock still makes them
vulnerable, possibly more so. Though spell defence could still be
split between mage and his foci - important to keep the no. of locks/foci
down

Oh well, you can only play the soft GM for so long :)
It does keep them off-guard for when I _really_ hit them. :)
Message no. 18
From: Philip Hayward <Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Subject: Re: Spell lock
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 13:04:28 +6000
Damion wrote:
>> Actually the more I think about it the more I like it. A sam's cyberware
>> becomes part of him and his aura covers it when he pays essence for it, so
>> why not have something similar for foci when a mage pays karma for it.
>> Now, I suspect there would be a problem with it somewhere. Presumably
>> with mundanes wearing spell locks - no, the spell lock still makes them
>> vulnerable, possibly more so.
>
> Well, I guess you could rule that way (it can be reasoned out like you
> said), but for mundanes it's a bit trickier, since the caster pays the karma
> for a spell lock or quickening, not the user (so they same reasoning can't
> really be applied).

You're right, so mundanes stick with current rules :( serves 'em right

>> Though spell defence could still be split between mage and his foci -
>> important to keep the no. of locks/foci down
>
> The idea will make foci and quickenings more difficult to kill,

will it? they will be hit by any spell targetted on the mage so
they will be hit more often. Uhm.. Oh dear, I don't think I will
use this idea, _any_ spell grounded through the lock can destroy it right?
since the lock and the owner have would be the same target then the next
time a mage uses heal, treat, personal combat sense etc... he could lose
his lock.. So I'll take your 'the two auras interact with each other'
and leave it at that

Phil
<Philip.Hayward@***.UK>

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Spell lock, 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.