Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "Daniel D. McManus" <MCMA4772@********.BITNET>
Subject: Stronger Spell Locks??
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 1994 22:55:46 +0100
I'm not trying to sound like a munchking but I need to have a group
of "Bad Guys" who are basically unstoppable(at this moment).
They are using Spell Locks for an Invisibility spell. What I don't
need though, is one of my player's characters sitting in astral space
and popping fireballs through the Spell Locks.
Is there a way to make a Spell Lock with a higher Force, or is it
possible to put a Spell Barrier on the Spell Lock that is for the
Spell Lock and not the person who has the lock??
--Thanks Dan
Message no. 2
From: Schnood <cdjworks@******.DIGEX.NET>
Subject: Re: Stronger Spell Locks??
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 1994 18:41:20 -0500
> I'm not trying to sound like a munchking but I need to have a group
>of "Bad Guys" who are basically unstoppable(at this moment).
> They are using Spell Locks for an Invisibility spell. What I don't
>need though, is one of my player's characters sitting in astral space
>and popping fireballs through the Spell Locks.
> Is there a way to make a Spell Lock with a higher Force, or is it
>possible to put a Spell Barrier on the Spell Lock that is for the
>Spell Lock and not the person who has the lock??

The best thing to do is to have the spells Quickened on them. If you
don't have the Grimoire it's something available to Initiates. Basically
it's a locked spell without the lock. Instead of having only 1 die for
the test it gets its force for the resisted success test against the spell.

---
Dawn: The time when men of reason go to bed.
Message no. 3
From: Michael Garoni <Michael_Garoni@****.INTERSOLV.COM>
Subject: Re: Stronger Spell Locks??
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 10:18:00 LCL
:] I'm not trying to sound like a munchking but I need to have a group
:]of "Bad Guys" who are basically unstoppable(at this moment).
:] They are using Spell Locks for an Invisibility spell. What I don't
:]need though, is one of my player's characters sitting in astral space
:]and popping fireballs through the Spell Locks.
:] Is there a way to make a Spell Lock with a higher Force, or is it
:]possible to put a Spell Barrier on the Spell Lock that is for the
:]Spell Lock and not the person who has the lock??

Make 'em initiates and Quicken it (if they are super bad guys, bugger worrying
about Karma costs). Have a fire elemental running around them on patrol
watching for nasty PCs dismantling. Just a few ideas.

Obi Wan
Message no. 4
From: Jason Larke <jlarke@***.ITD.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Stronger Spell Locks??
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 1994 19:47:01 -0500
In message <199403062158.QAA24017@***.itd.umich.edu>you write:
For any of the bad guys who are mages, they can Mask the foci...
you can't ground through something you can't see. Otherwise, as
several others have said, Quickenings sound best.


+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Jason Larke- jlarke@*****.edu- Computer geek, philosophy major, bassist|
| "Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash, from Army of Darkness |
| I don't speak for anyone except myself, so drop it. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

> I'm not trying to sound like a munchking but I need to have a group
>of "Bad Guys" who are basically unstoppable(at this moment).
> They are using Spell Locks for an Invisibility spell. What I don't
>need though, is one of my player's characters sitting in astral space
>and popping fireballs through the Spell Locks.
> Is there a way to make a Spell Lock with a higher Force, or is it
>possible to put a Spell Barrier on the Spell Lock that is for the
>Spell Lock and not the person who has the lock??
>--Thanks Dan
Message no. 5
From: "C. Paul Douglas" <granite@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: Stronger Spell Locks??
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 1994 20:48:38 -0500
On Sun, 6 Mar 1994, Daniel D. McManus wrote:

> I'm not trying to sound like a munchking but I need to have a group
..........> Spell Lock and not the person who has the lock??
> --Thanks Dan
>
Simply make them initiates and give them masking...
----------------------GRANITE
Message no. 6
From: "C. Paul Douglas" <granite@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: Stronger Spell Locks??
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 1994 20:52:09 -0500
On Sun, 6 Mar 1994, Schnood wrote:

> The best thing to do is to have the spells Quickened on them. If you
> don't have the Grimoire it's something available to Initiates. Basically
> it's a locked spell without the lock. Instead of having only 1 die for
> the test it gets its force for the resisted success test against the spell.

But you can still ground through them..And that would mean the bad guys
would be invisible ALL the time..
--------------------GRANITE
Message no. 7
From: Joe Bay <bay@*******.RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Stronger Spell Locks??
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 1994 22:09:21 EST
Well, for spell locking without the lock, use anchoring or quickening (SRII
Grimoire), metamagical disciplines available to initiates. Or, if you feel
like bending the rules, allow Spell Locks with higher ratings. Just let the
Karma and monetary costs equal the base costs times the square (or the cube,
even) of the rating. So a rating 3 spell lock costs 9 karma to bond, and
runs for 9*45 k (not counting the street index). Hard to get, neh?

Joe
GS
Message no. 8
From: "Skrub." <mccllstr@*****.BUCKNELL.EDU>
Subject: Re: Stronger Spell Locks??
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 08:29:56 -0500
> They are using Spell Locks for an Invisibility spell. What I don't
> need though, is one of my player's characters sitting in astral space
> and popping fireballs through the Spell Locks.

Masking. As long as the mage casting the invisibility is an initiate he
can mask the connection. Now, it is POSSIBLE for a PC to find it, but
only by already knowing it's there and going on an astral quest to reveal it.

Skrub.
Message no. 9
From: Chris Ryan <chrisr@***.QUT.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Stronger Spell Locks??
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 09:49:21 --1000
> > They are using Spell Locks for an Invisibility spell. What I don't
> > need though, is one of my player's characters sitting in astral space
> > and popping fireballs through the Spell Locks.
>
> Masking. As long as the mage casting the invisibility is an initiate he
> can mask the connection. Now, it is POSSIBLE for a PC to find it, but
> only by already knowing it's there and going on an astral quest to reveal it.

Which means, of course, that the PC mage has to be an initiate do it.

One thing I've been meaning to ask and this thread is slightly related, is
how do you lot determine the rating of a stacked enchantment?

e.g. a rating X Power focus combined with a spell lock on it?

Is it as powerful as the power focus? As weak as the spell lock? Somewhere
between, or what?

Chris

Chris Ryan | Earthdawn List: earthdawn@****.concept.com.au
QDPI/QUT | (email me for subscription details)
Brisbane Qld Australia | President BRISCON Association
chrisr@****.qut.edu.au | (email me for BRISCON 94 convention details)
Message no. 10
From: Nightfox <DJWA@******.UCC.NAU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Stronger Spell Locks??
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 21:06:18 -0700
>Which means, of course, that the PC mage has to be an initiate do it.
>
>One thing I've been meaning to ask and this thread is slightly related, is
>how do you lot determine the rating of a stacked enchantment?
>
>e.g. a rating X Power focus combined with a spell lock on it?
>
>Is it as powerful as the power focus? As weak as the spell lock? Somewhere
>between, or what?

Take the highest rating is my guess. One would not weaken the other - they are
a single being - if anything the addition of other things to the main one would
increase its toughness (but for game balance just take the highest)


So if you had a power focus 4 with two locks - it would probably react as a 4
still.

BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!
Daniel Waisley + SCA - March of Ered Sul - Flagstaff AZ
DJWA@******.UCC.NAU.EDU + Nau fencing club.
"Nightfox" + Brotherhood of the Cryptic Demesne -household
BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!
GE - d+(-) -p+@ c++(++++) !L u(--) e+(*) m+ s+/ !n+(-) h* f+ g+ w+++ t+ r+ y+
"infinity = zero" - Daniel Waisley "Nightfox"
BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!
Message no. 11
From: SHADE <MFN6430@*****.TAMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: stronger spell locks
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 12:28:57 -0600
> I'm not trying to sound like a munchking but I need to have a group
>of "Bad Guys" who are basically unstoppable(at this moment).

>I take it you mean NPCs to attack your players with.

> They are using Spell Locks for an Invisibility spell. What I don't
>need though, is one of my player's characters sitting in astral space
>and popping fireballs through the Spell Locks.
> Is there a way to make a Spell Lock with a higher Force, or is it
>possible to put a Spell Barrier on the Spell Lock that is for the
>Spell Lock and not the person who has the lock??

If there is an initiate in the party have him do an astral quest to
hide the link. If this is done they can see the spell lock, but they can't
cast a spell down it unless they do an astral quest to find the link.

Isbin and Thurmite
Message no. 12
From: Neal A Porter <nap@*****.PHYSICS.SWIN.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Stronger Spell Locks??
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 10:59:17 +1000
>
> I'm not trying to sound like a munchking but I need to have a group
>of "Bad Guys" who are basically unstoppable(at this moment).
> They are using Spell Locks for an Invisibility spell. What I don't
>need though, is one of my player's characters sitting in astral space
>and popping fireballs through the Spell Locks.
> Is there a way to make a Spell Lock with a higher Force, or is it
>possible to put a Spell Barrier on the Spell Lock that is for the
>Spell Lock and not the person who has the lock??
>--Thanks Dan
>

Instead of using a spell, try those ruthermer (sp?) fibres in ShadowTech,
give them the appearance of a Bandersnatch. And as they are non magical
they cann't have spells grounded through them. As to hiding the team itself
from astral detection, just have their own mage/elemental/free spirit on
overwatch to zap/burn/eat the partys mage when he goes astral.


A'Deus.
Message no. 13
From: Neal A Porter <nap@*****.PHYSICS.SWIN.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Stronger Spell Locks??
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 12:22:05 +1000
>
>>Which means, of course, that the PC mage has to be an initiate do it.
>>
>>One thing I've been meaning to ask and this thread is slightly related, is
>>how do you lot determine the rating of a stacked enchantment?
>>
>>e.g. a rating X Power focus combined with a spell lock on it?
>>
>>Is it as powerful as the power focus? As weak as the spell lock? Somewhere
>>between, or what?
>
>Take the highest rating is my guess. One would not weaken the other - they are
>a single being - if anything the addition of other things to the main one would
>increase its toughness (but for game balance just take the highest)
>
>
>So if you had a power focus 4 with two locks - it would probably react as a 4
>still.
>
> "Nightfox"

I (note that this is a personal opinion) would stick with the old addage that
a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If the opposing mage is smart
enough to look carefuly at the foci/spell lock he should be able to ground
the spell through either. This is assuming that you adopt the belief that
a stacked foci is a power foci/spell lock combination. On the other hand
if you say that you have a foci that has the powers of a power foci and a
spell lock as part of it, then it would have to be as strong as the strongest
part ( see the difference between two foci, each with one power, combined.
And one foci with two powers).
Anyway, in the end its up to the players of any group to decide, and then
for the GM to ignore them and come up with his/her own solution.

A'Deus.
Message no. 14
From: Nightfox <DJWA@******.UCC.NAU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Stronger Spell Locks??
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 13:38:45 -0700
>>Take the highest rating is my guess. One would not weaken the other - they are
>>a single being - if anything the addition of other things to the main one would
>>increase its toughness (but for game balance just take the highest)
>>
>> "Nightfox"
>
> I (note that this is a personal opinion) would stick with the old addage that
>a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If the opposing mage is smart
>enough to look carefuly at the foci/spell lock he should be able to ground
>the spell through either. This is assuming that you adopt the belief that
>a stacked foci is a power foci/spell lock combination. On the other hand
>if you say that you have a foci that has the powers of a power foci and a
>spell lock as part of it, then it would have to be as strong as the strongest
>part ( see the difference between two foci, each with one power, combined.
>And one foci with two powers).

To give thought to what my differing opinion is, I will say this. Yes a chain
is only as strong as the weakest link, but a stacked focus is not a chain where
different parts are tenously hooked together, rather it is like a piece of cloth
our rope made out of two or more interwoven materials. If I make a cloth made
from woven cotton and gold thread the cloth is not going to rip and tear just
because gold is very soft and malleable. similarly, a stacked focus is ALL one
arua - you can not seperate it into saying well this part is the power focus and
this part is the spell lock so I will target that. Its like trying to take the
sugar out of a container of Kool-aid - you can't pick it out, you have to
evporate the water, then remove the sugar from each flavor-crystal, but to do
that you have to overcome the strongest part (water) first.

Think of Stacked focuses as an alloy where the parts make it as strong or
stronger than the whole.

> Anyway, in the end its up to the players of any group to decide, and then
>for the GM to ignore them and come up with his/her own solution.

I agree


PS. why are we getting into all these wonderful magic discussions a week befor
emy spring break?!?!? I just know that I will miss all the discusions about
magic (my favorite topic about which I often write long discourses) while I'm
away on break in Tuscon. You people are doing this just to make sure I don't
get to make too many overly long lectures - aren't you? :)



BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!
Daniel Waisley + SCA - March of Ered Sul - Flagstaff AZ
DJWA@******.UCC.NAU.EDU + Nau fencing club.
"Nightfox" + Brotherhood of the Cryptic Demesne -household
BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!
GE - d+(-) -p+@ c++(++++) !L u(--) e+(*) m+ s+/ !n+(-) h* f+ g+ w+++ t+ r+ y+
"infinity = zero" - Daniel Waisley "Nightfox"
BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!
Message no. 15
From: Your Friend <bay@*******.RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Stronger Spell Locks??
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 20:52:16 EST
I think that the rating should reflect the higher one. Otherwise,
there's not much point in stacking a spell lock onto something else.

Joe

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Stronger Spell Locks??, 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!