Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: TN Modifiers
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 11:27:35 +0100
Georg Greve said on 9:30/14 May 96...

> Seems like it's time for this discussion again *sigh*. There are TWO
> different kind of tests in SR: SUCCESS tests and RESISTANCE
> tests. Resistance Tests are unaffected by modifiers (yes, this DOES
> mean drain and wound staging as well as spell resistance).
>
> ONLY the SUCCESS tests are affected by modifiers.
>
> Of course this is all AFAIK and so on. I am really getting tired of
> having to tell this three times a year, maybe I should do a crontab
> entry. ;-)

And I'm getting really tired of having to keep pointing out that DRTs
*are* modified for casting and sustaining multiple spells. Just to make
sure everybody gets the point, here's the direct quote from the first
paragraph, page 129, SRII:

"The magician does, however, suffer a +2 modifier to all target numbers
involved in casting the spells and TO RESIST THE DRAIN per stacked spell."
(my capitals). Therefore, I say that anyone sustaining 3 Barrier spells
gets a +6 modifier the the DRT for casting any spell.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
That's what being a man is all about, Steve: making mistakes and not caring!
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/mortuary.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 2
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.com.au>
Subject: Re: TN Modifiers
Date: Wed, 15 May 96 19:40:51 +1030
>"The magician does, however, suffer a +2 modifier to all target numbers
>involved in casting the spells and TO RESIST THE DRAIN per stacked spell."
>(my capitals). Therefore, I say that anyone sustaining 3 Barrier spells
>gets a +6 modifier the the DRT for casting any spell.

Umm... No. Sorry, Gurth. :)
That's for Spell Stacking. Spell Stacking is casting multiple spells in
one complex action. So, if the mage casts 3 barrier spells at once, yeah,
the guy resists at +6. If he casts one, then the other, and then the
third, he resists as normal, it just takes him longer.


--
* *
/_\ "A friend is someone who likes the same TV programs you do" /_\
{~._.~} "Eternal nothingness is fine if you happen {~._.~}
( Y ) to be dressed for it." -- Woody Allen ( Y )
()~*~() Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au ()~*~()
(_)-(_) (_)-(_)
Message no. 3
From: "Mark Steedman" <M.J.Steedman@***.rgu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: TN Modifiers
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 11:35:05 GMT
> From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
>
> And I'm getting really tired of having to keep pointing out that DRTs
> *are* modified for casting and sustaining multiple spells. Just to make
> sure everybody gets the point, here's the direct quote from the first
> paragraph, page 129, SRII:
>
> "The magician does, however, suffer a +2 modifier to all target numbers
> involved in casting the spells and TO RESIST THE DRAIN per stacked spell."

This is from the section on stacking multiple spells to cast the lot
in a single action which is a very! powerful trick if you can use it.
I consider this an exception to the general rule.

> (my capitals). Therefore, I say that anyone sustaining 3 Barrier spells
> gets a +6 modifier the the DRT for casting any spell.
>
If you are going to apply TN modifiers to drain EXCEPT for [stacking
multiple spells in one action - exception above, and background count
above 5 (another specific case)] you must apply them to ALL damage
resistance tests and that means modifiers from all sources, including
tasers, hyper etc.. Otherwise you are being very unfair on the poor
magicians. (and all they will do is fit the utility spells to locks
they turn on as required instead anyway, which is even more powerful)

While around the subject i consider spell locked spells sustained by
the lock not the caster. They function without the casters
concentration after all, hence exclusivity does not affect further
spells cast as you casting/sustaining an exclusive spell stop you
from doing anything else magical at the same time, it does not prevent
foci attached to you functioning.

Mark
Message no. 4
From: "Sascha Pabst" <Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>
Subject: Re: TN Modifiers
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 16:11:41 +0200
At 12:27 Uhr 15.05.96, Gurth wrote:
>Georg Greve said on 9:30/14 May 96...
>> Seems like it's time for this discussion again *sigh*.
[snip]
>> Of course this is all AFAIK and so on. I am really getting tired of
>> having to tell this three times a year, maybe I should do a crontab
>> entry. ;-)

>And I'm getting really tired of having to keep pointing out that DRTs
>*are* modified for casting and sustaining multiple spells. Just to make
>sure everybody gets the point, here's the direct quote from the first
>paragraph, page 129, SRII:
>
>"The magician does, however, suffer a +2 modifier to all target numbers
>involved in casting the spells and TO RESIST THE DRAIN per stacked spell."
>(my capitals). Therefore, I say that anyone sustaining 3 Barrier spells
>gets a +6 modifier the the DRT for casting any spell.

Um.. you are talking different things, don't ya notice? Georg talks about
'sustaining' spells, which give a +2TN for success tests, and Gurth about
'stacking' spells, that is, casting 'em simultaniously.

If you check: In a way you are both right. And, of course, wrong. Depends
on what you talk...

Sascha

--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |The one who does not|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| learn from history |
| \___ __/ | | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | through it again. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 5
From: Peter David Boddy <pdboddy@****.carleton.ca>
Subject: Re: TN Modifiers
Date: Wed, 15 May 96 11:37:23 EDT
Gurth writes:
> And I'm getting really tired of having to keep pointing out that DRTs
> *are* modified for casting and sustaining multiple spells. Just to make
> sure everybody gets the point, here's the direct quote from the first
> paragraph, page 129, SRII:
>
> "The magician does, however, suffer a +2 modifier to all target numbers
> involved in casting the spells and TO RESIST THE DRAIN per stacked spell."
> (my capitals). Therefore, I say that anyone sustaining 3 Barrier spells
> gets a +6 modifier the the DRT for casting any spell.

Gurth, I'd like to point out that that rule is for spell stacking, meaning
casting multiple spells simulaneously. If a mage casts a stink spell in
round one, and manabolt in the second, he will have +2 to his tn for any
test except drain. Drain is only affected by the spell stacking rule.

Pete

Pete aka Spitfire
Test your might...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter David Boddy
Carleton University
Email address: pdboddy@****.carleton.ca
Email address: bx955@*******.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 6
From: "Dr. Bolthy von Schotz" <bolthy@**.com>
Subject: Re: TN Modifiers
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 13:59:46 -0500 (CDT)
On Wed, 15 May 1996, Gurth wrote:

> Georg Greve said on 9:30/14 May 96...
>
> > Seems like it's time for this discussion again *sigh*. There are TWO
> > different kind of tests in SR: SUCCESS tests and RESISTANCE
> > tests. Resistance Tests are unaffected by modifiers (yes, this DOES
> > mean drain and wound staging as well as spell resistance).
> >
> > ONLY the SUCCESS tests are affected by modifiers.
> >
> > Of course this is all AFAIK and so on. I am really getting tired of
> > having to tell this three times a year, maybe I should do a crontab
> > entry. ;-)
>
> And I'm getting really tired of having to keep pointing out that DRTs
> *are* modified for casting and sustaining multiple spells. Just to make
> sure everybody gets the point, here's the direct quote from the first
> paragraph, page 129, SRII:
>
> "The magician does, however, suffer a +2 modifier to all target numbers
> involved in casting the spells and TO RESIST THE DRAIN per stacked spell."
> (my capitals). Therefore, I say that anyone sustaining 3 Barrier spells
> gets a +6 modifier the the DRT for casting any spell.
>

And I'm getting tired of saying, "Spell locks, quickening, spell locks,
quickening." =)


|\ /\ |\ | |\
|/ \/ | \ |\ | \
|\ /\ | |/ \ |
|/ / \ | | \|

http://weber.u.washington.edu/~bolthy
"Remember: Heaven is Blue. Tomorrow, the world."
-Head of the Blue Meanies
Message no. 7
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: TN Modifiers
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 11:11:31 +0100
Peter David Boddy said on 11:37/15 May 96...

> Gurth, I'd like to point out that that rule is for spell stacking, meaning
> casting multiple spells simulaneously. If a mage casts a stink spell in
> round one, and manabolt in the second, he will have +2 to his tn for any
> test except drain. Drain is only affected by the spell stacking rule.

What can I say? I was right, partly, but also partly wrong :) I confused
casting multiple spells in one action, and casting one spell while
sustaining another... *blush*

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Een mens kan zich vergissen, maar dit is toch al te lullig...
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/mortuary.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 8
From: "Sascha Pabst" <Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>
Subject: Re: TN Modifiers
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 15:03:07 +0200
At 20:59 Uhr 15.05.96, Dr. Bolthy von Schotz wrote:
>And I'm getting tired of saying, "Spell locks, quickening, spell locks,
>quickening." =)

May I ask where a rule is to be found that an exclusive spell is no longer
exclusive (btw I am tired of typing 'exclusive' :-) when it
is locked/quickened?

Sascha

--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |The one who does not|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| learn from history |
| \___ __/ | | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | through it again. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 9
From: "Mark Steedman" <M.J.Steedman@***.rgu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: TN Modifiers
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 16:38:10 GMT
Sascha Pabst writes

>
> May I ask where a rule is to be found that an exclusive spell is no longer
> exclusive (btw I am tired of typing 'exclusive' :-) when it
> is locked/quickened?
>
>
There is no such rule but.
A spell that is being sustained by a spell lock is not being
sustained by you, therefore wether it is exclusive or not has no
effect on your use of magic.
You could argue though that you cannot lock eclusive spells either
because
'locking a spell is a magical act, you cannot do this while
sustaining / casting the exclusive spell you are trying to lock'
or
'the spell is now sustained by the astral plane, it can only sustain
more than one lock on the whole planet if none are exclusive'.

There is no offical FASA answer as far as i know, the rules on this
are just too vague though that gives more freedom to the GM to set
the answer to suit his/her campain.

Mark
Message no. 10
From: "Dr. Bolthy von Schotz" <bolthy@**.COM>
Subject: Re: TN Modifiers
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 11:24:25 -0500 (CDT)
On Thu, 16 May 1996, Sascha Pabst wrote:

> At 20:59 Uhr 15.05.96, Dr. Bolthy von Schotz wrote:
> >And I'm getting tired of saying, "Spell locks, quickening, spell locks,
> >quickening." =)
>
> May I ask where a rule is to be found that an exclusive spell is no longer
> exclusive (btw I am tired of typing 'exclusive' :-) when it
> is locked/quickened?
>

My point had been regarding standard target numbers... As far as I know,
ythere are no rules concerning that specificallystat such... it does say
that spell locks allow a mage to maintain a spell without the magician's
"concentration or concern". Personally, I'd never get an exclusive
spell, so I think it's a little academic for me... though on the other
hand, I think it's a bit more clear with something like anchoring
though... =)



|\ /\ |\ | |\
|/ \/ | \ |\ | \
|\ /\ | |/ \ |
|/ / \ | | \|

http://weber.u.washington.edu/~bolthy
"Remember: Heaven is Blue. Tomorrow, the world."
-Head of the Blue Meanies
Message no. 11
From: TopCat <topcat@******.net>
Subject: Re: TN Modifiers
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 13:08:18 -0500
>May I ask where a rule is to be found that an exclusive spell is no longer
>exclusive (btw I am tired of typing 'exclusive' :-) when it
>is locked/quickened?
>
> Sascha

You can ask, but the answer is: there isn't one. It's a magekin convention
used to get two free dice without penalty.

-------------------------------------
"I was thinking of the immortal words
of Socrates, who said: I drank what?"
-- Real Genius
-------------------------------------
TopCat at the bottom...
Message no. 12
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.com.au>
Subject: Re: TN Modifiers
Date: Fri, 17 May 96 17:28:47 +1030
>May I ask where a rule is to be found that an exclusive spell is no longer
>exclusive (btw I am tired of typing 'exclusive' :-) when it
>is locked/quickened?

Yes... you can't lock or quicken exclusive spells. Locking & quickening
spells is a magical activity, which you can't use while sustaining an
exclusive spell. QED.


--
* *
/_\ "A friend is someone who likes the same TV programs you do" /_\
{~._.~} "Eternal nothingness is fine if you happen {~._.~}
( Y ) to be dressed for it." -- Woody Allen ( Y )
()~*~() Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au ()~*~()
(_)-(_) (_)-(_)
Message no. 13
From: "Sascha Pabst" <Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>
Subject: Re: TN Modifiers
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 10:51:30 +0200
At 18:38 Uhr 16.05.96, Mark Steedman wrote:
[exclusive spell in spell lock exclusive or not?]
>There is no such rule but.
>A spell that is being sustained by a spell lock is not being
>sustained by you, therefore wether it is exclusive or not has no
>effect on your use of magic.
>You could argue though that you cannot lock eclusive spells either
>because
>'locking a spell is a magical act, you cannot do this while
>sustaining / casting the exclusive spell you are trying to lock'
>or
>'the spell is now sustained by the astral plane, it can only sustain
>more than one lock on the whole planet if none are exclusive'.
>
>There is no offical FASA answer as far as i know, the rules on this
>are just too vague though that gives more freedom to the GM to set
>the answer to suit his/her campain.

Wow, I am impressed... if you had done such a statement when the
'grounding through quickening' discussion came up last time, you'd
save us lots of time (and phone bills).
But HEY, you stole us another long discussion! :-)

Sascha

--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |The one who does not|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| learn from history |
| \___ __/ | | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | through it again. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 14
From: "Sascha Pabst" <Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>
Subject: Re: TN Modifiers
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 10:51:37 +0200
At 20:08 Uhr 16.05.96, TopCat wrote:
>>May I ask where a rule is to be found that an exclusive spell is no longer
>>exclusive (btw I am tired of typing 'exclusive' :-) when it
>>is locked/quickened?
>You can ask, but the answer is: there isn't one. It's a magekin convention
>used to get two free dice without penalty.

And once again you a) generalize and b) didn't pay attention...
I am one of the magicians, although I'd rather not put a 1) exclusive or
2) fetish-based spell into a spell lock or a quickening. But that'd be my
personal understanding of how these spells work, and I'd rather have a
pointer to some rules when the mage in our group starts such a thing then
saying "you are just a rule basher!". :-)

Sascha

--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |The one who does not|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| learn from history |
| \___ __/ | | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | through it again. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 15
From: "Mark Steedman" <M.J.Steedman@***.rgu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: TN Modifiers
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 13:33:29 GMT
Sascha Pabst writes

> Wow, I am impressed...
Thanks.

> if you had done such a statement when the
> 'grounding through quickening' discussion came up last time, you'd
> save us lots of time (and phone bills).
Someone needed to go and actually read the Grimoire very fast there.
I still have yet to get around to looking it up in order to
double check ny opinion, although it seems to have come down to the
two camps agreed to a ceasefire (or did they just run out of ammo for
the artillery guns?) as somw folks seemed to just stop listening and
open fire on that.

> But HEY, you stole us another long discussion! :-)
I 'might' have slowed down the charge of the entreched camps brigades.

One other matter on the quickenings debate is it happed at a time
when i was a lot busier, i usually am up to date within a day or two
on the list, however some sections of this year got just a 'bit' too
busy.

>
>
Mark
Message no. 16
From: "Sascha Pabst" <Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>
Subject: Re: TN Modifiers
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 18:11:43 +0200
At 8:58 Uhr 17.05.96, Robert Watkins wrote:
>>May I ask where a rule is to be found that an exclusive spell is no longer
>>exclusive (btw I am tired of typing 'exclusive' :-) when it
>>is locked/quickened?
>
>Yes... you can't lock or quicken exclusive spells. Locking & quickening
>spells is a magical activity, which you can't use while sustaining an
>exclusive spell. QED.

Fine. What about fetish-restrictions? :-)

Sascha

--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |The one who does not|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| learn from history |
| \___ __/ | | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | through it again. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 17
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.com.au>
Subject: Re: TN Modifiers
Date: Sat, 18 May 96 19:07:05 +1030
>>Yes... you can't lock or quicken exclusive spells. Locking & quickening
>>spells is a magical activity, which you can't use while sustaining an
>>exclusive spell. QED.
>
>Fine. What about fetish-restrictions? :-)

I wouldn't care about fetish-restrictions, as long as the fetish was
incorporated into the lock.


--
_______________________________________________________________________
/ \
| "As soon as we started programming, we found to our surprise that it |
| wasn't as easy to get programs right as we had thought. Debugging |
| had to be discovered. I can remember the exact instant when I |
| realized that a large part of my life from then on was going to be |
| spent in finding mistakes in my own programs." -- Maurice Wilkes |
| Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au |
\_______________________________________________________________________/
Message no. 18
From: TopCat <topcat@******.net>
Subject: Re: TN Modifiers
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 13:32:31 -0500
>At 20:08 Uhr 16.05.96, TopCat wrote:
>>>May I ask where a rule is to be found that an exclusive spell is no longer
>>>exclusive (btw I am tired of typing 'exclusive' :-) when it
>>>is locked/quickened?
>>You can ask, but the answer is: there isn't one. It's a magekin convention
>>used to get two free dice without penalty.

>And once again you a) generalize and b) didn't pay attention...

I paid a great deal of attention as you'll now see...hopefully. As to
whether I generalized: there was a simple, solid question dealing with a
simple, solid subject. Kinda hard to generalize anything along those lines.

>I am one of the magicians, although I'd rather not put a 1) exclusive or
>2) fetish-based spell into a spell lock or a quickening. But that'd be my
>personal understanding of how these spells work, and I'd rather have a
>pointer to some rules when the mage in our group starts such a thing then
>saying "you are just a rule basher!". :-)

If a player or GM says something even along the lines of "Well, it doesn't
exactly say anywhere in the books that I can't do this, so it's legal" they
define munchkin. They go outside the rules. If they go by the rules, then
they'll realize that they cannot use exclusive spells in locks or
quickenings without consequence (and as someone else pointed out, you can't
do anything magical while an exclusive spell is working, which would include
locking that spell).

Now, you ask about fetish-based spells being locked...

One "charge" of a fetish is used when a spell is cast. Since a locked spell
is only really cast once, then it would take a "charge" to lock it. It
would not use a "charge" of the fetish each time thereafter the lock was
turned on or off. Once again, simple extrapolation from the rules that are
there.

-------------------------------------
"I was thinking of the immortal words
of Socrates, who said: I drank what?"
-- Real Genius
-------------------------------------
TopCat at the bottom...

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about TN Modifiers, 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!