Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: [SR3]Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 00:46:37 EDT
In a message dated 8/10/1998 4:50:33 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
erikj@****.COM writes:

>
> I really don't see how a non-magical item, a fetish, can really help
> channel mana or act as a lens or whatever.
>
I snipped the rest, and I admit it. Take this for what it is worth.

Expendable Fetish is gone. Steve gave a reason during Sunday's Q&A, but the
tape was accidentally off during that part, so I don't have the exact quote.
Anyone else remember this one?

-K
Message no. 2
From: Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: [SR3]Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 00:01:07 -0700
>Expendable Fetish is gone. Steve gave a reason during Sunday's Q&A, but the
>tape was accidentally off during that part, so I don't have the exact quote.
>Anyone else remember this one?
>
>-K
>

No, Kirby and I were busy making snide comments and chucking spitballs one
row up from Kenson, so I missed it. [joke]
I think it amounts to 2 parts "they were just plain silly", 1 part
"they
were to powerful", and 1 part "they don't exist in REAL magical mythology".
The last because magical materials that get used up tend to be used in
RITUALS- summoning being the example in SR3, and ritual sorcery being slated
for MITS (I HOPE- shoot I didn't even ask).

Yes, that's another BIG change- SR3 has NO ritual sorcery rules. Makes
sense- it doesn't have vehicle or deck construction, either. KISS.

Mongoose
Message no. 3
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: [SR3]Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 01:03:17 EDT
In a message dated 8/10/1998 5:24:25 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
Nexx3@***.COM writes:

> Actually, if you take a look at the actuallity surrounding those two spell
> categories, they mix to a huge degree. The effects of a combat spell is to
> damage a target by manipulating its etheric form, be it a mana bolt
punching
> a
> hole in it or a Hellblast incinerating it... most of the damage is
inflicted
> on the astral, with the physical effects being less important (unlike a
> damaging manipulation, where all of the energy is gathered in the mage, who
> releases it as a mostly physical form).
>
> Health spells, like combat spells, work primarily by manipulating a targets
> etheric form, in most cases to sew up damage or reinforce the target's aura
> (like with Treat or Increase Attribute), though it can also be used to
> subtlely weaken a targets aura (such as with Blindness or Cause Allergy).
> Really, the two spell categories are just opposite sides of the same coin,
> doing things in the same way, but to cause opposite effects.
>
Well, again, just to taint and toss people around (damn, I'm in a mood
tonight), the area of Combat Spells is now the smallest spell category in
existence.

ALL Elemental Effect magic has been moved to Transformation Manipulation in
some manner or form.

Thus there is now basically Power Bolt, Power Ball, Mana Bolt, Mana Ball, Stun
Bolt, Stun Ball, and Death Touch (summary). Damage codes for these are now
variable, so that when you cast them at the time of the casting, they are set
ATM. Thus if a magician were to cast a spell and didn't really want to kill,
only harm or maim (dramatic description), they might choose to have "Mana Bolt
<Light Damage>", and would thus resist a <Light Drain> for his/her
effort.

You can probably reverse/forward engineer the rest.

-K
Message no. 4
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3]Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:04:19 +1000
Mongoose writes:
> I think it amounts to 2 parts "they were just plain silly", 1
> part "they
> were to powerful", and 1 part "they don't exist in REAL magical
> mythology".

I'd agree on 1, but not on 2... the concept of material components from AD&D
fits in nicely with an expendable fetish, and the material component idea
definately had it's roots in magical mythology.

--
Duct tape is like the Force: There's a Light side, a Dark side, and it
binds the Universe together.
Robert Watkins -- robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 5
From: Nexx Many-Scars <Nexx3@***.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3]Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 01:11:00 EDT
In a message dated 11/08/98 00:04:44 Central Daylight Time, Ereskanti@***.COM
writes:

> Damage codes for these are now variable, so that when you cast them at the
time of > the casting, they are set ATM. Thus if a magician were to cast a
spell and didn't really > want to kill, only harm or maim (dramatic
description), they might choose to have
> "Mana Bolt <Light Damage>", and would thus resist a <Light
Drain> for
his/her effort.

Actually, K, this supports my theory, making the combat spells sound even more
like Treat and Heal...

Nexx
Message no. 6
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3]Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 01:59:25 EDT
In a message dated 8/11/1998 12:07:47 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
robert.watkins@******.COM writes:

> Mongoose writes:
> > I think it amounts to 2 parts "they were just plain silly", 1
> > part "they
> > were to powerful", and 1 part "they don't exist in REAL magical
> > mythology".
>
> I'd agree on 1, but not on 2... the concept of material components from
AD&D
> fits in nicely with an expendable fetish, and the material component idea
> definately had it's roots in magical mythology.
>
Agree with you overall here, except that a "Material Component", in or out of
AD&D, is not likely to be reusable in any format. spell locks are not
material components, they were something entirely different IMO.

-K
Message no. 7
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3]Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 02:02:15 EDT
In a message dated 8/11/1998 12:12:05 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
Nexx3@***.COM writes:

> > Damage codes for these are now variable, so that when you cast them at
> the
> time of > the casting, they are set ATM. Thus if a magician were to cast a
> spell and didn't really > want to kill, only harm or maim (dramatic
> description), they might choose to have
> > "Mana Bolt <Light Damage>", and would thus resist a <Light
Drain> for
> his/her effort.
>
> Actually, K, this supports my theory, making the combat spells sound even
> more
> like Treat and Heal...
>
You are correct, it does support one portion of your theory, but it doesn't
support the concept of "elementality" or "allergic response" to a
spell
casting. If it does, then please elaborate to me if you could...I am missing
it.

-K
Message no. 8
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3]Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:02:36 +1000
K writes:
> Agree with you overall here, except that a "Material Component",
> in or out of
> AD&D, is not likely to be reusable in any format. spell locks are not
> material components, they were something entirely different IMO.

Um, Keith... I was replying to a comment on _expendable fetishes_ being
gone. IMHO, both expendable and resuable fetishes have their place (even if
expendable fetishes tended to be slightly munchy)

I'm fine on the thing with the spell locks being sustaining spell foci.

--
Duct tape is like the Force: There's a Light side, a Dark side, and it
binds the Universe together.
Robert Watkins -- robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 9
From: Nexx Many-Scars <Nexx3@***.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3]Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 02:06:29 EDT
In a message dated 11/08/98 01:03:11 Central Daylight Time, Ereskanti@***.COM
writes:

> > Actually, K, this supports my theory, making the combat spells sound even
> > more
> > like Treat and Heal...
> >
> You are correct, it does support one portion of your theory, but it doesn't
> support the concept of "elementality" or "allergic response" to
a spell
> casting. If it does, then please elaborate to me if you could...I am
> missing
> it.

Well, that was an entirely different conversation <g>. I tend to note when
I'm working in theory, and assume that everyone assumes that I'm working with
canon unless I say theory. I'll work on a full introduction to my theory and
set it loose... its more than just saying combat and health are the same.

Nexx
Message no. 10
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3]Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 02:13:09 EDT
In a message dated 8/11/1998 1:05:30 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
robert.watkins@******.COM writes:

> Um, Keith... I was replying to a comment on _expendable fetishes_ being
> gone. IMHO, both expendable and resuable fetishes have their place (even if
> expendable fetishes tended to be slightly munchy)
>
> I'm fine on the thing with the spell locks being sustaining spell foci.

Ah, sorry Robert, the posting had me confused as to what topic was what for
some reason, and here I was trying to pay so close attention too :P

-K
Message no. 11
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3]Re: New spells Anyone?
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 10:47:10 EDT
In a message dated 8/10/98 11:47:40 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
Ereskanti@***.COM writes:

> Expendable Fetish is gone. Steve gave a reason during Sunday's Q&A, but the
> tape was accidentally off during that part, so I don't have the exact
quote.
> Anyone else remember this one?

Yes, to paraphrase Steve ... "Why have two things doing the same thing and
causing lots of confusion about why they are different ... so the expendable
fetishes are gone now."

-Herc
------ The Best Mechanic you can ever have.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about [SR3]Re: New spells Anyone?, 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!