Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Sustained Spells
Date:	Thu, 27 Apr 1995 16:47:01 +1000

Message no. 1 Robert Watkins writes:

> The only example of a sustained DM in the book works like this (kinda).
> With Spark, you resolve it with the ranged combat procedure. Which means
> you check each time you want to do damage.

But Spark was corrected to an Instant spell in the errata.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 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+

From:	Mark Steedman <RSMS@******.EEE.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Sustained Spells
Date:	Thu, 27 Apr 1995 12:59:40 GMT

Message no. 2 Damion Milliken

> Robert Watkins writes:
>
> > The only example of a sustained DM in the book works like this (kinda).
> > With Spark, you resolve it with the ranged combat procedure. Which means
> > you check each time you want to do damage.
>
> But Spark was corrected to an Instant spell in the errata.
>
Correct: but they still forgot to put the drain up to ((F/2) + 1)S and
include elemental effect lightning. Note that the Grimoire says all
damaging manipulations must include elemental effects. They are
actually better without as it saves the drain level but fortunately
thats not allowed!

> --
> Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au
>
Mark

From:	Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Sustained Spells
Date:	Sat, 29 Apr 1995 00:46:44 +1000

Message no. 3 Mark Steedman writes:

> Correct: but they still forgot to put the drain up to ((F/2) + 1)S and
> include elemental effect lightning. Note that the Grimoire says all
> damaging manipulations must include elemental effects. They are
> actually better without as it saves the drain level but fortunately
> thats not allowed!

Yeah, if you bother to go through and calculate it, a few of the FASA spells
have incorrect drain codes when created using their own spell creation
system. Hellblast comes to mind.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 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+

From:	Mark Steedman <RSMS@******.EEE.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject:	Sustained Spells
Date:	Wed, 4 Oct 1995 11:11:24 GMT

Message no. 4 I got so many mails about my replies on this one i went and looked it
up throughly. Two subjects:

Allowance to sustain spells:
Main rulebook p128 (SR2 softback corrected 3rd printing)
'Magicians may maintain spells while astrally perceiving (p145), but
not while astrally projecting (p146)'.

Therefore i am correct.

Sustaining spells on other people.
The only FASA info is indirect, best Grimoire2 , p112
under Range
'They can be sustained on that target as long as the caster wishes'.
Both the main book and grimoire say in many places that a spellcaster
can only effect what he or she can see the sustaing of spells and LOS
never being specifically covered.

I conclude.
My interpretation that you require LOS for sustaining spells is
reasonable.
The interpretaion of a number of folks that mailed me that you do not
require LOS to sustain spells is valid.

It basically depends on wether you count 'its not banned' or 'its
against los required for effect' as the dominant ruling, either is
valid 'by the book'.

Thanks

Mark

From:	Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Sustained Spells
Date:	Wed, 4 Oct 1995 20:07:46 +0930

Message no. 5 Mark Steedman wrote:
>
> I conclude.
> My interpretation that you require LOS for sustaining spells is
> reasonable.

The book, either first or second edition, gives an example of a detective
having a "Detect Truth" spell cast on him, then going wandering away from
the casting magician and using it...

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***

From:	Mark Steedman <RSMS@******.EEE.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Sustained Spells
Date:	Wed, 4 Oct 1995 13:11:52 GMT

Message no. 6 Jani sent this back only to me but to save answering the ams
equestions several times this is going up on the list. I hope thats
ok Jani.

> > Main rulebook p128 (SR2 softback corrected 3rd printing)
> > 'Magicians may maintain spells while astrally perceiving (p145), but
> > not while astrally projecting (p146)'.
> >
> > Therefore i am correct.
>
> I guess you are, but that doesnt mean that elementals cant sustain
> spells in the astral. After all they are not projecting, the astral is
> as comfortable to them as the physical plane is to us.
>
It says that elementals may carry out that service in their astral
form. [had not tried to answer that one], actually spirits are more
comfotable in their astral than manifest forms.

> > Sustaining spells on other people.
> > The only FASA info is indirect, best Grimoire2 , p112
> > under Range
> > 'They can be sustained on that target as long as the caster wishes'.
>
> Yes, but its always mentioned in conjunction with casting spells,
> not sustaining them.
>
Which is a real pain as its not explicit.

> Check out the FASA modules (Celtic Double Cross comes to mind)
> and you'll see that bad guys routinely sustain incrrease whatever spells
> on their fodder even when they are not present. I think thats proof
> enough.
>
I have only read about 6 of those, which may be the problem here. If
they do it in the modules then i suppose its allowed, though i did
agree above that its a fair interprtation of the rules.

From:	Mark Steedman <RSMS@******.EEE.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Sustained Spells
Date:	Wed, 4 Oct 1995 13:14:39 GMT

Message no. 7 Robert Watkins writes

> Mark Steedman wrote:
> >
> > I conclude.
> > My interpretation that you require LOS for sustaining spells is
> > reasonable.
>
> The book, either first or second edition, gives an example of a detective
> having a "Detect Truth" spell cast on him, then going wandering away from
> the casting magician and using it...
>
>
Don't have the book handy but at a guess it does not bother to say if
the mage can still see the detective or not, sure he can wander
'away' but is he allowed out of LOS?, see my response to Jani where
answers from adventures are discussed.

Mark

From:	Justin Elliott <justin.elliott@********.OTAGO.AC.NZ>
Subject:	Sustained spells
Date:	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:52:58 +1300

Message no. 8 Over the last few sessions of gaming I have had a Mage sustaining a spell
over a very long period. Now as thing s stand the mage only has to worry
about the drain once. To me this seems all wrong (unless I have missed
something in the rule... anyone?).

Just of the top of my head I would suggest either:

(a) the Mage has to make a new drain roll every hour or so.(with being able
to use less dice from he Magic Pool as time goes on).

(b) the Mage automatically takes one fatigue every hour (cf. Astral
travel)

I think on the whole I prefer a). I think it is more "realistic" and brings
the game in line with some of the fiction where mages collapse after
sustaining spells to long.

As I said this was of the top of my head, but what do you guys think?

Justin.

From:	Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject:	Re: Sustained spells
Date:	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 06:10:57 +0000

Message no. 9 > Over the last few sessions of gaming I have had a Mage sustaining a spell
> over a very long period. Now as thing s stand the mage only has to worry
> about the drain once. To me this seems all wrong (unless I have missed
> something in the rule... anyone?).
*snip*
> As I said this was of the top of my head, but what do you guys think?

Hm.. how long is a very long period? 3-4 hours?

Well, since you can 'loose' sustaining from being hit, it apparently
takes a somewhat strong concentration. It takes a sorcery test, and
if it fails the spell drops. (TN is the spell's force + injury
mods.). It could be reasonable to demand this test after some unit of
time passes (willpower * 10 minutes?) to see if the prolonged
concentration breaks, not due to being hit but other factors -
keeping concentrated for a long time is difficult in and of itself.

You might use new drain resistance tests instead of the above
concentration test each will*10 minutes. Or, you could use a
drain resistance test if the spell is dropped involuntarily. (The
spell unravels in a destructive manner, unlike what it does when
dropped voluntarily.).

It's late. I hope the above is coherent enough. ;)
--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost

From:	Bruce <gyro@********.CO.ZA>
Subject:	Re: Sustained spells
Date:	Wed, 25 Nov 1998 08:49:14 +0200

Message no. 10 -----Original Message-----
From: Justin Elliott <justin.elliott@********.OTAGO.AC.NZ>
To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Date: 25 November 1998 03:47
Subject: Sustained spells

>Over the last few sessions of gaming I have had a Mage sustaining a
spell
>over a very long period. Now as thing s stand the mage only has to
worry
>about the drain once. To me this seems all wrong (unless I have
missed
>something in the rule... anyone?).

<snip extra Drain suggestions>

Thw way I've always seen it is that Drain comes from the initial surge
of astral
energies through the body/nervous system of the channeling
mage/shaman.
Thus, when the magician has the channel open and flowing there should
be no problem
keeping it open. As long as you remember the penalties asscociated
with sustaining
(+2 to target numbers IIRC and no exclusive spells or actions) all
should be well.

-- BRUCE <gyro@********.co.za>
*Executive Engineer* *FrontLine Games*
Eva's Gyro

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer