Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Ryan Moore <moorer@******.KEH.UTULSA.EDU>
Subject: Spell locks for non-mages
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 09:36:20 CST
Are there any rules preventing a mage from placing spell locks on others?

I ask because the mage in my group wants to place an armor spell lock
on another party member and is willing to pay the karma.
I don't particularly want him to do this but haven't come up with any
counter arguments other than "You just can't! that's why!"

Any suggestions?

Thanks
Ryan
--
______________________________________________________________________________
moorer@******.keh.utulsa.edu | Only the insane have the strength to survive
Ryan Moore | Only the survivors determine what is sane.
|
______________________________________________________________________________
Message no. 2
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Spell locks for non-mages
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 17:14:43 +0100
> Are there any rules preventing a mage from placing spell locks on others?
>
> I ask because the mage in my group wants to place an armor spell lock
> on another party member and is willing to pay the karma.
> I don't particularly want him to do this but haven't come up with any
> counter arguments other than "You just can't! that's why!"
>
> Any suggestions?

The mage will be the one doing the on and off switching, other than that
and the fact that the mundaner will be peramanently open to astral attcks
I cant think of any rule to prevent this. The rules actually specifically
allow 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. 3
From: Scott Taylor Spencer <sts100z@********.CC.ODU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Spell locks for non-mages
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 12:06:16 -0500
On Wed, 22 Mar 1995, Ryan Moore wrote:

> Are there any rules preventing a mage from placing spell locks on others?
>
> I ask because the mage in my group wants to place an armor spell lock
> on another party member and is willing to pay the karma.
> I don't particularly want him to do this but haven't come up with any
> counter arguments other than "You just can't! that's why!"
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Thanks
> Ryan
> --
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> moorer@******.keh.utulsa.edu | Only the insane have the strength to survive
> Ryan Moore | Only the survivors determine what is sane.
> |
> ______________________________________________________________________________
>
As far as I can tell, there are not any rules say that this cannot be
done. In fact I had the same problem. So I let him do it keeping in
mind that the recipient of the spell lock cannot control it and toasted
them with a juicy fireball. That ended all discussion of the matter.

Angus Blackwatch
Message no. 4
From: Mark A Sawko <sawk6112@****.GMI.EDU>
Subject: Re: Spell locks for non-mages
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 13:53:54 EST
Ryan Moore wrote:
> Are there any rules preventing a mage from placing spell locks on others?
>
> I ask because the mage in my group wants to place an armor spell lock
> on another party member and is willing to pay the karma.
> I don't particularly want him to do this but haven't come up with any
> counter arguments other than "You just can't! that's why!"
>
> Any suggestions?

There's nothing in the rules preventing this but he might want to consider a few
drawbacks. Only someone that can astrally percieve can see the lock, so if the mage gives
the lock to a mundane, he can't tell if he has it or not. Another drawback is that this
spell lock also has to be counted with the maximum number of foci that a mage can bond to
(the mage bonds to the spell lock, not whoever he gives it to). Finally, the biggest
problem is that this spell lock, which will be out of sight from the mage a lot of the
time, is like a neon sign yelling for ritual sorcery to be used through the lock to fry
the mage no matter where he is relative to it. I've never known a mage to let foci out of
his/her sight.
-----

/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Mark Sawko | GMI Engineering | Duct Tape: |
| sawk6112@****.gmi.edu | and Management | The solution to everything |
| | Institute | from global warming to |
| | Flint, MI | keeping your socks up. |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Geek Code V2.1:
GE>$ d? H+ s+:- g- p? au a23 w+ v
C+ U P? L- !3 E? N+ K- W+@ M V--
-po+ Y
t++ 5- !j R+ G++ tv+@ b++ D+ B--
e+>e--- u** h- f? r---@ n---- y?
Message no. 5
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Spell locks for non-mages
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 14:13:18 -0500
>>>>> "Ryan" == Ryan Moore <moorer@******.KEH.UTULSA.EDU>
writes:

Ryan> Are there any rules preventing a mage from placing spell locks on
Ryan> others?

No. However, such spell locks are still controlled by the casting mage;
only he can (de)activate the lock.

Just remember that locked spells are not only good for grounding,
they're also spiffy material links for ritual sorcery.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | which, if exposed due to rupture, should
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! | not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
Message no. 6
From: Keith Johnson <jrsnyder@********.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Spell locks for non-mages
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 13:17:01 -0600
Ryan writes:

>Are there any rules preventing a mage from placing spell locks on others?
>
>I ask because the mage in my group wants to place an armor spell lock
>on another party member and is willing to pay the karma.
>I don't particularly want him to do this but haven't come up with any
>counter arguments other than "You just can't! that's why!"
>
>Any suggestions?
>

Ryan, Ryan, Ryan that is exactly what a spell lock is for!!!

Mages, my beloved Kerielle included make LOTS
of nuyen locking spells onto mundanes. It's a
good business.

As a GM, however, it is your job to know of, and
EVENTUALLY exploit its weaknesses.

Spell locks are astrally active so ANYONE(anything)
that can see astrally will notice the lock IMMEDIATELY.
Also, with a little careful snooping will know what it's
for.


Listen carefully Boys and Girls...

Here is the lock's major weakness...

All spell locks have a force rating of ONE!!!!!!!!

If the lock isn't defended by a mage in the Sixth
World, any half witted elemental can destroy it
in the blink of an eye! Not to mention any mage
with an interest in removing it.

Now, it is important to keep in mind that if this
spell lock happens, no Mage will even CARE until
she's paid to, or the lock becomes a direct (indirect)
threat to the Mage.

So, let them do it, keep track of all the Mages this
guy pisses off and at a horribly inopportune time...

"What Spell Lock?"

Damn I'm evil...

See ya,

Keith

PS The hard one comes when your players realize
that they can make a permanent version of any
spell just by researching it, and upping the staging
of the drain by 2...
Permanent armour
invisibility
strength
dexterity
reaction
charisma
body
flight

IT GETS REALLY WIERD
Message no. 7
From: Keith Johnson <jrsnyder@********.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Spell locks for non-mages
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 13:24:35 -0600
with respect to spell locks ...

Jani writes:

> The mage will be the one doing the on and off switching, other than that
>and the fact that the mundaner will be peramanently open to astral attcks
>I cant think of any rule to prevent this. The rules actually specifically
>allow it.
>

Actually I think the mundane will not be open to attacks only the lock.

The mundane is not active the lock is.

Am I wrong?

Keith
Message no. 8
From: Keith Johnson <jrsnyder@********.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Spell locks for non-mages
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 13:34:00 -0600
I forgot something...

A good joke to play to a Corp you want to
piss off is to get hired to do some magickal
Face Work on him for a party, spell lock it
and then blast the lock when he's there!

I got into a lot of trouble over that

But it teaches people that killing someone
for screwing you is sometimes too kind...

Keith

-Well, he does have some redeeming qualities...-
-Yes, but I don't have any problems with those!-

Jessica Snyder and Andrea Keller
Discussing Keith Johnson
Message no. 9
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Spell locks for non-mages
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 15:46:18 -0500
On Wed, 22 Mar 1995, Keith Johnson wrote:

> PS The hard one comes when your players realize
> that they can make a permanent version of any
> spell just by researching it, and upping the staging
> of the drain by 2...
> Permanent armour
> invisibility
> strength
> dexterity
> reaction
> charisma
> body
> flight
>
> IT GETS REALLY WIERD
>

Yeah, which is exactly why the permanent duration category is
intended only for spells that restore things to their original nature, like
heal, or cure disease. See page 118 of the Grimoire (second edition),
for more details.
If you let any sustained spell be cast with a permanent duration
just by having the increased target number, you will regret it later.
Besides, that's what Quickening is for...

Marc
Message no. 10
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Spell locks for non-mages
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 15:57:08 -0500
>>>>> "Keith" == Keith Johnson <jrsnyder@********.WISC.EDU>
writes:

Keith> Actually I think the mundane will not be open to attacks only the lock.

Yes, he will. What happens is this. When you attack a locked spell with a
spell that has a physical effect, anything in contact with the spell lock
when it's grounded through is affected. If the attacking spell has an area
of effect then anything in that area is also affected.

Or do you mean to say that the non-mage isn't a dual natured entity?
Because that is true. But the lock is still dual-natured.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox |
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! |
Message no. 11
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Spell locks for non-mages
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 15:57:48 -0500
On Wed, 22 Mar 1995, Keith Johnson wrote:

> Actually I think the mundane will not be open to attacks only the lock.
>
> The mundane is not active the lock is.
>
> Am I wrong?

No, you are correct. But if the spell I ground through the lock
happens to be, oh, say Flame Bomb, your life will rapidly begin to suck
as the little pin on your lapel becomes ground zero for 900 cubic meters
of flaming doom. This is where the real danger of grounding lies.
Oh, and even if you survive, you still lose the lock. Have a nice
day.

Marc
Message no. 12
From: Keith Johnson <jrsnyder@********.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Spell locks for non-mages
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 15:12:04 -0600
>On Wed, 22 Mar 1995, Keith Johnson wrote:
>
>> PS The hard one comes when your players realize
>> that they can make a permanent version of any
>> spell just by researching it, and upping the staging
>> of the drain by 2...
>> Permanent armour
>> invisibility
>> strength
>> dexterity
>> reaction
>> charisma
>> body
>> flight
>>
>> IT GETS REALLY WIERD
>>
>
> Yeah, which is exactly why the permanent duration category is
>intended only for spells that restore things to their original nature, like
>heal, or cure disease. See page 118 of the Grimoire (second edition),
>for more details.
> If you let any sustained spell be cast with a permanent duration
>just by having the increased target number, you will regret it later.
>Besides, that's what Quickening is for...
>
>Marc

Yes Mark, but under spell research it clearly states that any non health
spell can be made permanent in duration by adding +2 to its drain staging.

In our game, we allow this. But we're pretty intensive into the
mystical aspects(we have 4 shamans, my mage and another, a decker,
and 2 Samurai) so the wierdnesses generated by these things rulings
are of great interest to my group.

For example, you come upon a poor sod who has been permanently turned
into a tree ( I do it all the time, it's a hoot! ). If you just fight the
spell, and turn the guy back, you piss off a mage. Do you really want
to do that. It is interesting to our group to have these kind of
quandries.

I must also point out that my character is the only
dedicated magick wielder in our group, everyone else is highly
skilled in weapons, and the other mage and one of the shamans
have hardware implants. They call it generalization, I call it
obscene.

Anyway, the ramifications of interpretting the rules like this
would probably be lost on a group who don't enjoy the treachery
of the Sixth World, and be pretty annoying too, but we like it.

Keith
Message no. 13
From: Keith Johnson <jrsnyder@********.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Spell locks for non-mages
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 15:28:58 -0600
Slippery Jim DeGriz writes:

>What happens is this. When you attack a locked spell with a
>spell that has a physical effect, anything in contact with the spell lock
>when it's grounded through is affected.

Why would any mage in her right mind attack a lock with
a physical spell? If its astrally active, all you need to do
is engage it in astral combat. It has a Force of 1. Easy to kill.
Not to mention that if the mundane can't see astrally, the
idiot, I mean poor guy, doesn't even know the spell is broken!
Talk about high humor!

The only reason to do otherwise would be if you wanted
to harm the guy with the lock. I'm not talking about that.

>If the attacking spell has an area
>of effect then anything in that area is also affected.

That's obvious, but this is not what I'm talking about.
I think you mean that the lock is a great way to target
someone with the lock, right?

>
>Or do you mean to say that the non-mage isn't a dual natured entity?
>Because that is true. But the lock is still dual-natured.

I've never used the term Dual Natured to describe phenomena
before. I guess it fits the definition... Hmm...
No, no it doesn't. Dual Nature if I remember correctly, also means
inability to astrally project. A projecting character can take
active foci with him, whereas a dual nature monster cannot
chase an astral mage through a wall unless in crashes through
on the physical plane too.

Will someone please figure out how big an idiot I am

Thanks

Keith
Message no. 14
From: Keith Johnson <jrsnyder@********.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Spell locks for non-mages
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 15:33:10 -0600
>Marc writes:
>
>On Wed, 22 Mar 1995, Keith Johnson wrote:
>
>> Actually I think the mundane will not be open to attacks only the lock.
>>
>> The mundane is not active the lock is.
>>
>> Am I wrong?
>
> No, you are correct. But if the spell I ground through the lock
>happens to be, oh, say Flame Bomb, your life will rapidly begin to suck
>as the little pin on your lapel becomes ground zero for 900 cubic meters
>of flaming doom. This is where the real danger of grounding lies.
> Oh, and even if you survive, you still lose the lock. Have a nice
>day.

Right. I think I mentioned somewhere that if you didn't have magickal
help you are very vulnerable... The Sixth World is where power resides.

Keith
Message no. 15
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Spell locks for non-mages
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 16:59:04 -0500
>>>>> "Keith" == Keith Johnson <jrsnyder@********.WISC.EDU>
writes:

Keith> Why would any mage in her right mind attack a lock with a physical
Keith> spell? If its astrally active, all you need to do is engage it in
Keith> astral combat. It has a Force of 1. Easy to kill.

Spells with a physical effect will ground out into the physical world. If
they're combat-type spells, they hurt whatever is carrying the lock; if
they're area of effect spells, they can hit everything in the area. That's
a really good way to take out the guy *and* his buddies with one of the
nastier physical combat spells with AoE elemental effects.

But assuming you just want to pop the lock you could use something harmless
like Fashion or Makeover to do it (and I've done it:).

Or you can capture the guy and use the spell lock as a material link for
ritual sorcery. It's amazing how many people forget this little bit,
especially when it's quite a bit more dangerous to the mage than grounding.

[...]

>> Or do you mean to say that the non-mage isn't a dual natured entity?
>> Because that is true. But the lock is still dual-natured.

Keith> I've never used the term Dual Natured to describe phenomena before.
Keith> I guess it fits the definition... Hmm... No, no it doesn't. Dual
Keith> Nature if I remember correctly, also means inability to astrally
Keith> project.

No, dual nature means having both a physical and an astral presence,
nothing more.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox |
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! |
Message no. 16
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Spell locks for non-mages
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 10:57:40 +0100
>Are there any rules preventing a mage from placing spell locks on others?

No.

>I ask because the mage in my group wants to place an armor spell lock
>on another party member and is willing to pay the karma.
>I don't particularly want him to do this but haven't come up with any
>counter arguments other than "You just can't! that's why!"

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*


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Sanity is a full time job
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?
Message no. 17
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Spell locks for non-mages
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 10:57:48 +0100
> Actually I think the mundane will not be open to attacks only the lock.
>
>The mundane is not active the lock is.

No, but anything/anyone the lock is attached to it also affected by astral
attacks on the lock if the lock does not resist it...


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Sanity is a full time job
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?
Message no. 18
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Spell locks for non-mages
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 20:38:39 +1000
Marc A Renouf writes:

> No, you are correct. But if the spell I ground through the lock
> happens to be, oh, say Flame Bomb, your life will rapidly begin to suck
> as the little pin on your lapel becomes ground zero for 900 cubic meters
> of flaming doom. This is where the real danger of grounding lies.

Except for the fact that Flame Bomb is a Damaging Manipulation spell and so
cannot be used from astral space, and hence cannot be grounded. Fireball or
Hellblast OTOH... :-)

--
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. 19
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Spell locks for non-mages
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 21:04:27 +1000
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.

Hmm, that's an interesting theory actually. I had always assumed that spell
locks "dematerialise" once activated. The book says, in reference to spell
locks, once activated "...mundanes cannot see it, touch it, or affect it."
This had long irked me, as I always wondered just what happened to the
physical component of a spell lock once it was activated. Your idea might
have some promise. But according to the book, a mundane can't touch, or even
affect the lock, and yet if it is still actually there, then I'd imagine
that a mundane could touch the thing (or pour acid on it, or something
similar).

--
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. 20
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Spell locks for non-mages
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 20:20:30 GMT
Damion said -

> Except for the fact that Flame Bomb is a Damaging Manipulation spell and so
> cannot be used from astral space, and hence cannot be grounded. Fireball or
> Hellblast OTOH... :-)

Aha, something we agree on, am I right in assuming that you can;t use these
buggers for Ritual Sorcery as well? I know it says somewhere that you can't
use combat spells (?), but that always seemed the best use of ritual sorcery,
limited tactical strikes from a great distance away.

BTW if you use the explanation of DM's that they ground on you and create a
non-magical effect, do you think you could _touch_ the Lock on the Astral,
_then_ ground it through?


Phil
With helps from Runs-With-The-Pack, who uses Acid Bombs for smoke cover,
and tends to use his Steyr AUG for combat anyway.
Message no. 21
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Spell locks for non-mages
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 11:57:33 +0100
>Hmm, that's an interesting theory actually. I had always assumed that spell
>locks "dematerialise" once activated. The book says, in reference to spell
>locks, once activated "...mundanes cannot see it, touch it, or affect it."

It's not a theory, I got it from the NAGM :)

>This had long irked me, as I always wondered just what happened to the
>physical component of a spell lock once it was activated. Your idea might
>have some promise. But according to the book, a mundane can't touch, or even
>affect the lock, and yet if it is still actually there, then I'd imagine
>that a mundane could touch the thing (or pour acid on it, or something
>similar).

Yes he could, but remember that it doesn't exist in his mind. It's sort of a
variant on the "if you can't see it you can't hit it" proverb, I think --
the NAGM says (and I quote, so sue me -- there was no copyright notice on it
:)...

SPELL LOCKS
As described in the Shadowrun Second Edition rulebook (p.138) a
spell lock "vanishes once it is in place. It is still there, and operating,
but mundanes cannot see it, touch it, or affect it." When a spell lock is
attached to a target and activated, the lock's physical properties do not
change, instead the spell lock creates a magical effect that causes mundanes
to ignore, rationalize, or otherwise take no real notice of the spell lock's
presence.
Normally, this "see-me-not" effect is automatic and requires no
test; mundanes simply don't notice the lock and react as if it weren't
there. If the spell lock is in the form of something particularly outlandish
or unusual like a neon propellor beenie, mundanes might take notice of the
item, but find themselves wondering about it only after the wearer has left
the immediate area.


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I know what you think of me you never shut up
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?
Unofficially Nominated As Shadowrun Guru :)

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Spell locks for non-mages, 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.