Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: [SR3] Armor Spell
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 22:45:27 -0500
I was wondering. If you said that the armor spell, instead of creating a
barrier of rating x, gave you balistic and impact of rating x, would that
solve the problem that some people have with the spell?

D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
o/` Trideo killed the Video Star ... o/`

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 2
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Armor Spell
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 23:43:36 -0500
On Sun, 30 Aug 1998 22:45:27 -0500 Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
writes:
>I was wondering. If you said that the armor spell, instead of
>creating a barrier of rating x, gave you balistic and impact of rating
>x, would that solve the problem that some people have with the spell?
>
>D. Ghost
<SNIP Sig>

Doh!

This makes things worse because you don't chew through armor the way you
chew through barriers.

Okay. How about this ... the spell creates an armor pool equal to Force
+ (number of successes divided by 2) which can be distributed among
impact and balistic armor as the mage wishes. Once cast, however, these
values can not be changed unless the spell is recast. This effectively
cuts the spell's power in half.

Another option to restrict the spell is to say that it creates armor
instead of a barrier rating (as my original post suggested) but, only the
spell's armor rating or the target's original armor rating applies. (In
other words, a char with armor 4/4 has a force 6 armor spell cast on him
and the casting mage gets 4 successses. The char's new armor rating
would be 8/8 instead of 12/12.)

In either case, the spell could be overloaded if an attack does base
damage or more. (Ie, if a target of this spell is shot with a Colt
Manhunter and takes Moderate damage, then the spell goes down.)

Does this help?

D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
o/` Trideo killed the Video Star ... o/`

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 3
From: Michael Coleman <mscoleman@********.NET>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Armor Spell
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 01:38:34 -0500
> On Sun, 30 Aug 1998 22:45:27 -0500 Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
> writes:
> >I was wondering. If you said that the armor spell, instead of
> >creating a barrier of rating x, gave you balistic and impact of rating
> >x, would that solve the problem that some people have with the spell?
> >
> >D. Ghost
> <SNIP Sig>
>
> Doh!
>
> This makes things worse because you don't chew through armor the way you
> chew through barriers.
>
> Okay. How about this ... the spell creates an armor pool equal to Force
> + (number of successes divided by 2) which can be distributed among
> impact and balistic armor as the mage wishes. Once cast, however, these
> values can not be changed unless the spell is recast. This effectively
> cuts the spell's power in half.
>
> Another option to restrict the spell is to say that it creates armor
> instead of a barrier rating (as my original post suggested) but, only the
> spell's armor rating or the target's original armor rating applies. (In
> other words, a char with armor 4/4 has a force 6 armor spell cast on him
> and the casting mage gets 4 successses. The char's new armor rating
> would be 8/8 instead of 12/12.)
>
> In either case, the spell could be overloaded if an attack does base
> damage or more. (Ie, if a target of this spell is shot with a Colt
> Manhunter and takes Moderate damage, then the spell goes down.)
>
> Does this help?
>
> D. Ghost

How about this, the spell creates armor (as you suggested) but you get 1
armor point per success up to the force of the spell. Thus a Armor 6 spell
can give up to plus 6/6 in armor to the target if the caster rolls 6
success. I dont know on how to collapses the spell, maybe any attack
greater than 2x the armor collapses the spell. That does not sound to
right. How about making it a sustained spell instead of a permanent, but
this will greatly weaken the spell.

Mike
Message no. 4
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Armor Spell
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 13:40:01 +0100
And verily, did Alfredo B Alves hastily scribble thusly...
|
|I was wondering. If you said that the armor spell, instead of creating a
|barrier of rating x, gave you balistic and impact of rating x, would that
|solve the problem that some people have with the spell?

I don't get this.
Why did they change it?
The old way with virtual body worked fine for me.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| Finalist in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 5
From: Randy Nickel <LrdDrgn@***.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Armor Spell
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 11:08:03 EDT
In a message dated 8/30/98 9:03:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time, dghost@****.COM
writes:

> I was wondering. If you said that the armor spell, instead of creating a
> barrier of rating x, gave you balistic and impact of rating x, would that
> solve the problem that some people have with the spell?
>

That is how I intend to run.

Otter

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about [SR3] Armor Spell, 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!