Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
Subject: Sustaining Foci and Anchored Spells
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 06:24:53 -0500
Okay, this is something I've been mulling over for a little while now.

Now that sustaining foci are bound to sustain a spell type, as opposed to
an individual casting of a spell, this has new implications for anchored
spells. If I anchor an armor spell to a sustaining focus bound to sustain
armor spells, then the sustaining focus should sustain the spell every time
it's activated, right? Unlike an old spell lock, where you'd have to
rebond it with each activation.

So the new defensive magic item of choice that I see coming? Dual
sustaining foci with anchored detection/defensive spell combos, and no
messing around with sustained spells or temporal links or anything like
that. Essentially, an unlimited-use magic item, for as long as it lasts.
Of course, defense isn't the only application, but it's the first one that
springs to mind.

And, also on this topic, a general question: Based on the spell
description of Combat Sense in SR3, is it a suitable candidate to trigger
an anchored spell that you want to go off when the bearer is attacked? The
spell description implies yes, but the actual game mechanics of the spell
aren't as convincing. Unlike, say, a detect bullet spell, which is pretty
straightforward.


--
Starjammer - starjammer@**********.com - Marietta, GA

"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death
that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it
to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn
the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be
nothing. Only I will remain."
-- Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear, Frank Herbert, Dune
Message no. 2
From: "D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Sustaining Foci and Anchored Spells
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 12:50:14 -0600
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 06:24:53 -0500 Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
writes:
<SNIP>
>And, also on this topic, a general question: Based on the spell
>description of Combat Sense in SR3, is it a suitable candidate to
trigger
>an anchored spell that you want to go off when the bearer is attacked?
The
>spell description implies yes, but the actual game mechanics of the
spell
>aren't as convincing. Unlike, say, a detect bullet spell, which is
pretty
>straightforward.

... Depends on how you interpret the spell. IMO, the detect bullet spell
says "Yoohoo! Incoming bullet!" whereas the combat sense would just allow
you to see the incoming bullet before it is incoming. If this
interpretation is correct, then, no, combat sense is not a good choice
for a trigger. The reason is that the detect <whatever> spell has a
built-in decision-making capabilities (is there a bullet or not?) while
the combat sense just gives the spell user extra data. if you want to
use combat sense as a trigger, you're going to need -something- to
process the data from the combat sense first.

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"We called him Mother Superior because of the length of his habit" --
Trainspotting
"A magician is always 'touching' himself" --Page 123, Grimoire (2nd
Edition)

___________________________________________________________________
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/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 3
From: David Woods <david@*******.FREESERVE.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Sustaining Foci and Anchored Spells
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 19:21:30 +0000
Starjammer wrote:
>
> Okay, this is something I've been mulling over for a little while now.
>
> Now that sustaining foci are bound to sustain a spell type, as opposed to
> an individual casting of a spell,

Sustaining Foci are bonded to the Magician who spent the Karma to bond
it. At the same time as bonding the Magician must nominate one spell
that the Foci will work on.

> this has new implications for anchored
> spells.

Anchored spell have nothing to do with Sustaining Foci or the old Spell
Locks.

> If I anchor an armor spell to a sustaining focus bound to sustain
> armor spells,

?

> then the sustaining focus should sustain the spell every time
> it's activated, right?

No. The Sustaining Foci only Sustains a spell that a Magician has cast
as an Exclusive Action.

Example: A Magician has bonded a Sustaining Foci and linked in with a
Invisability Spell. He then touches the Focus while casting the
Invisibility as an Exclusive Action. The GM notes the number of
successes. The Magus doesn't need to Sustain the spell as the foci is
performing that task. The Magician can deactivate the focus as a free(?)
action ending the spell. The Magician must repeat the casting of the
spell to activate the Focus again.

The Focus *only* sustains the spell. It still need to be cast everytime
and as an Exclusive action.

> Unlike an old spell lock, where you'd have to
> rebond it with each activation.

Reread the 3rd Ed section on foci.

Regards

- David Woods
Message no. 4
From: "XaOs [David Goth]" <xaos@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: Sustaining Foci and Anchored Spells
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 13:21:37 -0600
> Unlike an old spell lock, where you'd have to
> rebond it with each activation.

You don't have to rebond it with each activation, but you DO have to recast
it with each activation. (And it must be the same spell exactly as when
originally bonded...or else you have to rebond it).

-XaOs-
xaos@*****.net
-David Goth-
Message no. 5
From: Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Sustaining Foci and Anchored Spells
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 15:13:23 -0500
At 07:21 PM 1/12/99 +0000, David Woods wrote:
>
>Reread the 3rd Ed section on foci.

Having done so, I must concede that I made a very bad conceptual error, as
things are written.

I made the assumption, wrongly, that a sustaining focus would automatically
"capture" a spell of the appropriate type cast upon it by the magician to
whom the focus is bound. It won't, as has been pointed out to me. It has
to be a deliberate act on the part of the casting magician, an Exclusive
casting of the spell. Working under that erroneous assumption, I decided
that it would also work for an anchored spell with an activation link, if
the spell were anchored directly to the focus itself.

IOW, I thought you could set up an anchored spell in conjunction with a
sustaining focus to get the best of both worlds. By the SR3 rules, you
can't. So let me change the question: How does it sound as a house rule
for making a new class of enchanted objects? Maybe with an additional Link
to set up the connection between spell and focus?


--
Starjammer - starjammer@**********.com - Marietta, GA

"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death
that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it
to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn
the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be
nothing. Only I will remain."
-- Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear, Frank Herbert, Dune
Message no. 6
From: David Woods <david@*******.FREESERVE.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Sustaining Foci and Anchored Spells
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 21:03:17 +0000
Starjammer wrote:
>
>
> IOW, I thought you could set up an anchored spell in conjunction with a
> sustaining focus to get the best of both worlds. By the SR3 rules, you
> can't. So let me change the question: How does it sound as a house rule
> for making a new class of enchanted objects? Maybe with an additional Link
> to set up the connection between spell and focus?

The Magician needs to be in physical contact and use an act of will to
activate a bonded focus. SR have deliberately avoided magic items in the
classic AD&D sense. Imo this is a good thing. The closest they've come
is Anchored Spells, but this isn't very close imo.

If you like, you could use the ED items as a model; but the systems are
so radially different in mechanics that it would be very difficult to do
it well. These also require the user to be in physical contact with the
Item.

Imo SR 3rd Ed doesn't need such things.

Regards

- David Woods
Message no. 7
From: Mongoose <m0ng005e@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Sustaining Foci and Anchored Spells
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:27:36 -0600
-----Original Message-----
From: Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Date: Tuesday, January 12, 1999 5:42 AM
Subject: Sustaining Foci and Anchored Spells


:Okay, this is something I've been mulling over for a little while now.
:
:Now that sustaining foci are bound to sustain a spell type, as opposed to
:an individual casting of a spell, this has new implications for anchored
:spells. If I anchor an armor spell to a sustaining focus bound to
sustain
:armor spells, then the sustaining focus should sustain the spell every
time
:it's activated, right? Unlike an old spell lock, where you'd have to
:rebond it with each activation.

:
<paste>
:Having done so, I must concede that I made a very bad conceptual error,
as
:things are written.
:
:I made the assumption, wrongly, that a sustaining focus would
automatically
:"capture" a spell of the appropriate type cast upon it by the magician to
:whom the focus is bound. It won't, as has been pointed out to me. It
has
:to be a deliberate act on the part of the casting magician, an Exclusive
:casting of the spell. Working under that erroneous assumption, I decided
:that it would also work for an anchored spell with an activation link, if
:the spell were anchored directly to the focus itself.
<end paste>
:
:So the new defensive magic item of choice that I see coming? Dual
:sustaining foci with anchored detection/defensive spell combos, and no
:messing around with sustained spells or temporal links or anything like
:that. Essentially, an unlimited-use magic item, for as long as it lasts.
:Of course, defense isn't the only application, but it's the first one
that
:springs to mind.

This would be pretty costly in terms of karma (and cash), if it were
possible, but It could kick some serois ass. Then again, it CAN be done
with temporal links, so...
I guess that's partly why they made the casting for sustaining foci
exclusive.

:And, also on this topic, a general question: Based on the spell
:description of Combat Sense in SR3, is it a suitable candidate to trigger
:an anchored spell that you want to go off when the bearer is attacked?
The
:spell description implies yes, but the actual game mechanics of the spell
:aren't as convincing. Unlike, say, a detect bullet spell, which is
pretty
:straightforward.


I believe you are thinking of "Sixth Sense". Combat sense itself does
not grant any specific information, just dice to combat pool (and
potentially, reaction tests). IMO, both would simply allow you to not be
suprised, and voluntarily trigger an anchor through normal means. The
anchor can not, afaik, detect the use of a adept power- unless you had a
activating spell that allowed it to do so! Such a spell would probably
be a detection spell with a TN of 10, since it detects magic / astral
activity.

<paste again>
:IOW, I thought you could set up an anchored spell in conjunction with a
:sustaining focus to get the best of both worlds. By the SR3 rules, you
:can't. So let me change the question: How does it sound as a house rule
:for making a new class of enchanted objects? Maybe with an additional
Link
:to set up the connection between spell and focus?

I'd wait for MITS to come out and check its rules for anchoring and
enchanting. Then you can make a house rule that won't need revision in 2
months. I think it would indeed require a new class of enchanted object,
or combination there-of in a multi-type focus.
Then again, what is so bad about normal SR2 anchoring and temporal
links? Have you ever considered doing the anchored spellcasting using
ritual sorcery, which can, by itself, provide for sustaining a spell, thus
obviating the need for temporal links? With an activation / deactivation
link, the time provided by the ritual could be stretched out a good deal.

Mongoose
Message no. 8
From: Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Sustaining Foci and Anchored Spells
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 22:17:31 -0500
At 05:27 PM 1/12/99 -0600, Mongoose wrote:
>
> I'd wait for MITS to come out and check its rules for anchoring and
>enchanting. Then you can make a house rule that won't need revision in 2
>months. I think it would indeed require a new class of enchanted object,
>or combination there-of in a multi-type focus.
> Then again, what is so bad about normal SR2 anchoring and temporal
>links? Have you ever considered doing the anchored spellcasting using
>ritual sorcery, which can, by itself, provide for sustaining a spell, thus
>obviating the need for temporal links? With an activation / deactivation
>link, the time provided by the ritual could be stretched out a good deal.

The intriguing thing about it to me was the fact that you could make an
anchored spell item which could theoretically last forever, unlike a
temporal linked spell you'd eventually have to recast and reanchor. And
it's not like you're not paying for it; you still have to pay the extra
cash and karma costs of a sustaining focus. It just seems to be, IMHO,
somehow more elegant and less crude.

I guess, to be really stringent about it, you could require a special
anchoring link for tying the spell to the focus, and require a special
enchantment of the focus along the lines of enchanting to enhance normal
anchoring. If you really wanted to make it rare, make it a metamagical
enchanting technique. It's not like the game couldn't stand to have a few
metamagical tricks for enchanters...


--
Starjammer - starjammer@**********.com - Marietta, GA

"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death
that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it
to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn
the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be
nothing. Only I will remain."
-- Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear, Frank Herbert, Dune
Message no. 9
From: Mongoose <m0ng005e@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Sustaining Foci and Anchored Spells
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 03:45:55 -0600
:The intriguing thing about it to me was the fact that you could make an
:anchored spell item which could theoretically last forever, unlike a
:temporal linked spell you'd eventually have to recast and reanchor. And
:it's not like you're not paying for it; you still have to pay the extra
:cash and karma costs of a sustaining focus. It just seems to be, IMHO,
:somehow more elegant and less crude.

More to the point, however, a temporal link if pretty much free,
excepting the potentially stupendous drain. That has an elegance all its
own. Kinda scary when you think about using blood magic to make anchors-
"26D drain? No problem, let me get my knife."
Since the problem is basically that a casting for a SuFu is exclusive,
you need some way around that. Purely IMO, a ritual casting , where one
team member is not casting but instead doing the anchoring, might do the
trick. Rituals should be a lot more flexible than normal casting.

Mongoose
Message no. 10
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Sustaining Foci and Anchored Spells
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 18:57:00 EST
In a message dated 1/12/1999 7:40:09 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
m0ng005e@*********.COM writes:

> :IOW, I thought you could set up an anchored spell in conjunction with a
> :sustaining focus to get the best of both worlds. By the SR3 rules, you
> :can't. So let me change the question: How does it sound as a house rule
> :for making a new class of enchanted objects? Maybe with an additional
> Link
> :to set up the connection between spell and focus?

I can't find the original post to this yet, so I'll toss this in right *here*.
There are (or at least *were*) some options like this that we've had for our
home games here for years up on Hacker House. IMO at least, what you are
suggesting is very interesting, and very powerful, if not tempered with some
understanding however. For instance, tieing in a "Detection Spell Foci" with
an "Anchored Detect Enemies" (using SR2 rules of course) would be flat out
awesome, and would in theory give the Anchoring a "Spell Pool" of sorts
towards it's own success test. However, if you flip the coin (per say), you
could envision something FAR worse occurring.

Tieing together a "Power Foci" with a "Mana Barrier", or something
similar
might in theory make a barrier so powerful as that it would not be readily
breachable. Hell, make it a "Flame Bomb" instead of "Mana Barrier"
(okay, in
SR3 it's Astral Barrier ;P), and the effects could be FAR worse.

> I'd wait for MITS to come out and check its rules for anchoring and
> enchanting. Then you can make a house rule that won't need revision in 2
> months. I think it would indeed require a new class of enchanted object,
> or combination there-of in a multi-type focus.

That damndable *waiting* again.. ;-)

> Then again, what is so bad about normal SR2 anchoring and temporal
> links? Have you ever considered doing the anchored spellcasting using
> ritual sorcery, which can, by itself, provide for sustaining a spell, thus
> obviating the need for temporal links? With an activation / deactivation
> link, the time provided by the ritual could be stretched out a good deal.

Except that I keep thinking that Anchoring, like Quickening, in SR2 rules did
NOT allow for Ritual Casting. I would have to check of course, but I really
remember it this way.

-K
Message no. 11
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Sustaining Foci and Anchored Spells
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 19:09:05 EST
In a message dated 1/12/1999 10:37:17 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
starjammer@**********.COM writes:

>
> I guess, to be really stringent about it, you could require a special
> anchoring link for tying the spell to the focus, and require a special
> enchantment of the focus along the lines of enchanting to enhance normal
> anchoring. If you really wanted to make it rare, make it a metamagical
> enchanting technique. It's not like the game couldn't stand to have a few
> metamagical tricks for enchanters...

*HERE HERE!!!!*

-K
Message no. 12
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Sustaining Foci and Anchored Spells
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 19:19:38 EST
In a message dated 1/13/1999 4:32:45 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
m0ng005e@*********.COM writes:

> Since the problem is basically that a casting for a SuFu is exclusive,
> you need some way around that. Purely IMO, a ritual casting , where one
> team member is not casting but instead doing the anchoring, might do the
> trick. Rituals should be a lot more flexible than normal casting.
>
<blinks> <blinks again>

Is this Mongoose? (holds Virtual Hand up to Virtual forehead to take a
Virtual Temperature...)

I am very uncertain in what you mean by those last words (last sentence
actually). A ritual, by it's definitions, cannot be more flexible than
regular spellcasting. It can be flexible in what it *CAN* do, but not on the
spot or during it's actual casting. It's a planned thing. Standard
spellcasting (on the fly, etc...) is not.

-K
Message no. 13
From: Mongoose <m0ng005e@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Sustaining Foci and Anchored Spells
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 19:38:10 -0600
--:> Since the problem is basically that a casting for a SuFu is
exclusive,
:> you need some way around that. Purely IMO, a ritual casting , where
one
:> team member is not casting but instead doing the anchoring, might do
the
:> trick. Rituals should be a lot more flexible than normal casting.


:I am very uncertain in what you mean by those last words (last sentence
:actually). A ritual, by it's definitions, cannot be more flexible than
:regular spellcasting. It can be flexible in what it *CAN* do, but not on
the
:spot or during it's actual casting. It's a planned thing. Standard
:spellcasting (on the fly, etc...) is not.

Thats what I meant- it would be easier to develop and add new magical
techniques as part of a ritual, because things happen more slowly, unlike
"off the cuff" instictive spellcasting. Plus, there are simply more
elements to mess with (both for the character's role playing and for our
rule playing).

Mongoose
Message no. 14
From: Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Sustaining Foci and Anchored Spells
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 04:46:31 -0500
At 06:57 PM 1/13/99 EST, K in the Shadows wrote:
>
>I can't find the original post to this yet, so I'll toss this in right
*here*.
>There are (or at least *were*) some options like this that we've had for our
>home games here for years up on Hacker House. IMO at least, what you are
>suggesting is very interesting, and very powerful, if not tempered with some
>understanding however. For instance, tieing in a "Detection Spell Foci"
with
>an "Anchored Detect Enemies" (using SR2 rules of course) would be flat out
>awesome, and would in theory give the Anchoring a "Spell Pool" of sorts
>towards it's own success test. However, if you flip the coin (per say), you
>could envision something FAR worse occurring.
>
>Tieing together a "Power Foci" with a "Mana Barrier", or something
similar
>might in theory make a barrier so powerful as that it would not be readily
>breachable. Hell, make it a "Flame Bomb" instead of "Mana
Barrier" (okay, in
>SR3 it's Astral Barrier ;P), and the effects could be FAR worse.

Um... no. That's not the sort of thing I was advocating, anyway. I just
wanted to very specifically tie an anchored spell into a sustaining focus,
to eliminate the need for temporal links or sustaining by the casting
magician, and so make the item more durable and reliable. Since sustaining
foci work differently from spell locks, it seemed doable.



--
Starjammer - starjammer@**********.com - Marietta, GA

"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death
that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it
to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn
the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be
nothing. Only I will remain."
-- Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear, Frank Herbert, Dune
Message no. 15
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Sustaining Foci and Anchored Spells
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:27:20 +0100
According to K in the Shadows, at 18:57 on 13 Jan 99, the word on
the street was...

> > I'd wait for MITS to come out and check its rules for anchoring and
> > enchanting. Then you can make a house rule that won't need revision in 2
> > months. I think it would indeed require a new class of enchanted object,
> > or combination there-of in a multi-type focus.
>
> That damndable *waiting* again.. ;-)

Waiting isn't too bad when you know until what time you have to wait. If
you don't, it can be very annoying...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kleiduivenmelker
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 16
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Sustaining Foci and Anchored Spells
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:46:46 EST
In a message dated 1/14/1999 4:52:40 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
starjammer@**********.COM writes:

> Um... no. That's not the sort of thing I was advocating, anyway. I just
> wanted to very specifically tie an anchored spell into a sustaining focus,
> to eliminate the need for temporal links or sustaining by the casting
> magician, and so make the item more durable and reliable. Since sustaining
> foci work differently from spell locks, it seemed doable.

It does, as it sounds like you are talking about a "stacked foci" as described
in the Grimoire.

-Herc

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Sustaining Foci and Anchored Spells, 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!