Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:07:59 -0500
Normally, maintaining a spell incurs a +2 target numbers to all
activities, but that seems, in certain cases, contrary to the nature of
the spell. (for example, casting Personal Combat Sense to assist your
combat abilities then having a +2 target number penalty in addition to
any unsoaked drain ...) So here is a possible solution:

Any spell may be learned as unobtrusive, which is the opposite of
exclusive. An exclusive spell allows the spell to be cast as if it were
2 points highr. An unobtrusive spell must be cast as if it was 2 points
lower (ie you pay for Force 6 spell and get a Force 4). The benefit is
that Sustaining one unobtrusive spell incurs no target number penalty,
and each additional unobtrusive spell maintained incurs a +1 to all
target numbers.

What do you think? too powerful? or just right?

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
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
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 2
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 11:39:12 -0400
Alfredo B Alves wrote:
>Normally, maintaining a spell incurs a +2 target numbers to all
>activities, but that seems, in certain cases, contrary to the nature of
>the spell. (for example, casting Personal Combat Sense to assist your
>combat abilities then having a +2 target number penalty in addition to
>any unsoaked drain ...) So here is a possible solution:

Yeah, it's a pain.

>Any spell may be learned as unobtrusive, which is the opposite of
>exclusive. An exclusive spell allows the spell to be cast as if it were
>2 points highr. An unobtrusive spell must be cast as if it was 2 points
>lower (ie you pay for Force 6 spell and get a Force 4). The benefit is

Elegant... I like elegant... :-)

>that Sustaining one unobtrusive spell incurs no target number penalty,
>and each additional unobtrusive spell maintained incurs a +1 to all
>target numbers.
>
>What do you think? too powerful? or just right?

How would this mix and match with the Concentration edge (I forget if
that's the actual name for it but...)? In general, I think it may
be a titch too powerful, though. It would certainly make mages more
willing to wade into combat with everybody else - a force 6 bullet
barrier (unobtrusive + fetish), maintaining healing spells on people,
etc.

Not bad, overall. Much more elegant than the edge (more in keeping
with the rest of the rules - why make an exception when you can just
extrapolate?).

James Ojaste
Message no. 3
From: Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 17:34:11 GMT
>Normally, maintaining a spell incurs a +2 target numbers to all
>activities, but that seems, in certain cases, contrary to the nature of
>the spell. (for example, casting Personal Combat Sense to assist your
>combat abilities then having a +2 target number penalty in addition to
>any unsoaked drain ...) So here is a possible solution:
>
>Any spell may be learned as unobtrusive, which is the opposite of
>exclusive.

I've heard of a solution where exclusive spells may be sustained 'for free'.

I've even heard it's canon, but I don't remember seeing that...

--

ADVICE, n. The smallest current coin.
-Ambrose Bierce
Message no. 4
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 12:41:00 -0500
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998 11:39:12 -0400 "Ojaste,James [NCR]"
<James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA> writes:
>Alfredo B Alves wrote:
>>Normally, maintaining a spell incurs a +2 target numbers to all
>>activities, but that seems, in certain cases, contrary to the nature of
>>the spell. (for example, casting Personal Combat Sense to assist your
>>combat abilities then having a +2 target number penalty in addition to
>>any unsoaked drain ...) So here is a possible solution:

>Yeah, it's a pain.

>>Any spell may be learned as unobtrusive, which is the opposite of
>>exclusive. An exclusive spell allows the spell to be cast as if it
were
>>2 points highr. An unobtrusive spell must be cast as if it was 2
points
>>lower (ie you pay for Force 6 spell and get a Force 4). The benefit is

>Elegant... I like elegant... :-)

me too :)

>>that Sustaining one unobtrusive spell incurs no target number penalty,
>>and each additional unobtrusive spell maintained incurs a +1 to all
>>target numbers.
>>
>>What do you think? too powerful? or just right?

>How would this mix and match with the Concentration edge (I forget if
>that's the actual name for it but...)? In general, I think it may
>be a titch too powerful, though. It would certainly make mages more
>willing to wade into combat with everybody else - a force 6 bullet
>barrier (unobtrusive + fetish), maintaining healing spells on people,
>etc.
>
>Not bad, overall. Much more elegant than the edge (more in keeping
>with the rest of the rules - why make an exception when you can just
>extrapolate?).
>
>James Ojaste

Doh! Forgot about the Focused Concentration (2 point edge) ... hmmm ...
simpliest solution would be same rules as above ... anything else mucks
things up :)

hmmm... this intended for spells that were intended to help other
abilities (like Personal Combat Sense helps combat) but end up hindering
them because of the target number penalties. If you think this will be a
problem 1) only allow this for such spells; 2) have the opposition mimic
the character's actions; or 3) use version 2.0 (see below :).

Version 2.0
Buying a spell as Unobtrusive means that spell incurs only a +1 target
nuber modifier while sustaining it. If the mage also has the focused
concentration edge, the spell incurs no target number penalty.

Version 2.0 should be more balanced, still elegant (as per James Ojaste's
evaluation :), and works well with the focused concentration edge. :)

Maybe now I can actully use that mageblade spell :) (the drain plus the
T# penalty for sustaining made it impractical ... I did change the Mana
version to stun damage to help with the drain and cuz it was a nice thing
to do :)

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
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
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 5
From: Hugo Barbosa <dwarin@****.TELEPAC.PT>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 19:05:06 +0100
I'll begin by saying hello to everyone on this list. I'm new and have been
following the discussions for a while before choosing to participate (lots
of activity in this list... good sign!). I'm from Portugal. So if there are
anyone else from Portugal who plays Shadowrun I'd like to get in touch,
specially people from Lisbon. Anyway, on to the subject...

-----Original Message-----
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Date: Terça-feira, 9 de Junho de 1998 17:24
Subject: Unobtrusive Spells


>Normally, maintaining a spell incurs a +2 target numbers to all
>activities, but that seems, in certain cases, contrary to the nature of
>the spell. (for example, casting Personal Combat Sense to assist your
>combat abilities then having a +2 target number penalty in addition to
>any unsoaked drain ...) So here is a possible solution:


It makes sense to have a +2 target number if you're sustaining a spell. It
implies that the mage or shaman is concentrating on maintaining the spell.
Even though he is able to perform other actiong, even the slightest effort
to concentrate translates into a penalty to the target numbers.

As for the apparent contradiction between the penalty and Personal Combat
Sense, it is just that. Just an apparent contradiction. The purpose of the
Personal Combat Sense spell is not to give a bonus to the target number but
to offer additional Combat Pool dice. This would mean that the magician is
aware of his opponent's actions and is has that extra edge necessary to
react to another's actions. Don't forget that while he is doing so, he's
still concentrating on maintaining the spell so I think this +2 is
justified. Sorta like trying to go into a fight while performing mental
mathematical calculations at the same time. If you are devoting even a small
percentage of your attention to something else, it's obvious that you'll
have difficulty in devoting full attention to something.

Later...

Hugo Barbosa,
Portugal
Message no. 6
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 14:11:54 -0500
>

> Any spell may be learned as unobtrusive, which is the opposite of
> exclusive. An exclusive spell allows the spell to be cast as if it were
> 2 points highr. An unobtrusive spell must be cast as if it was 2 points
> lower (ie you pay for Force 6 spell and get a Force 4). The benefit is
> that Sustaining one unobtrusive spell incurs no target number penalty,
> and each additional unobtrusive spell maintained incurs a +1 to all
> target numbers.
>
> What do you think? too powerful? or just right?
>
Hmm..without thinking too much it seems ok. The problem is, usually
the spells you want to use this with, invisibility, inc reflexes, etc
don't have to be cast at a high force to begin with, so your not
loosing too much.


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The universe doesn't have laws, it has habits. And habits can be broken.
Message no. 7
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 14:15:19 -0500
>
>
> >How would this mix and match with the Concentration edge (I forget if
> >that's the actual name for it but...)? In general, I think it may
> >be a titch too powerful, though. It would certainly make mages more
> >willing to wade into combat with everybody else - a force 6 bullet
> >barrier (unobtrusive + fetish), maintaining healing spells on people,
> >etc.
> >
> >Not bad, overall. Much more elegant than the edge (more in keeping
> >with the rest of the rules - why make an exception when you can just
> >extrapolate?).
> >
> >James Ojaste
>
> Doh! Forgot about the Focused Concentration (2 point edge) ... hmmm ...
> simpliest solution would be same rules as above ... anything else mucks
> things up :)
>
Personally, I don't like the edge. It seems fairly powerful for a minor
two points.

> hmmm... this intended for spells that were intended to help other
> abilities (like Personal Combat Sense helps combat) but end up hindering
> them because of the target number penalties. If you think this will be a
> problem 1) only allow this for such spells; 2) have the opposition mimic
> the character's actions; or 3) use version 2.0 (see below :).
>
> Version 2.0
> Buying a spell as Unobtrusive means that spell incurs only a +1 target
> nuber modifier while sustaining it. If the mage also has the focused
> concentration edge, the spell incurs no target number penalty.
>
> Version 2.0 should be more balanced, still elegant (as per James Ojaste's
> evaluation :), and works well with the focused concentration edge. :)
>
>
Hmm...that might work as well. I'll mention it to my players next time
and give it a shot, and see how it works out. Wonder if SR3 fixed this...
Hmm....anyway....

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The universe doesn't have laws, it has habits. And habits can be broken.
Message no. 8
From: Tim Kerby <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 14:36:54 -0400
On 9 Jun 98, at 19:05, Hugo Barbosa wrote:

> It makes sense to have a +2 target number if you're sustaining a spell. It
> implies that the mage or shaman is concentrating on maintaining the spell.
> Even though he is able to perform other actiong, even the slightest effort
> to concentrate translates into a penalty to the target numbers.

Hugo, let me be the first to welcome you to the list.

> As for the apparent contradiction between the penalty and Personal Combat
> Sense, it is just that. Just an apparent contradiction. The purpose of the
> Personal Combat Sense spell is not to give a bonus to the target number
> but to offer additional Combat Pool dice. This would mean that the
> magician is aware of his opponent's actions and is has that extra edge
> necessary to react to another's actions. Don't forget that while he is
> doing so, he's still concentrating on maintaining the spell so I think
> this +2 is justified. Sorta like trying to go into a fight while
> performing mental mathematical calculations at the same time. If you are
> devoting even a small percentage of your attention to something else, it's
> obvious that you'll have difficulty in devoting full attention to
> something.

Very impressive first post.I couldn't agree with you more. Mages are
powerful enough, as-is. I don't think this is a problem that needs
fixed, IMHO.

--


=================================================================
- Tim Kerby - drekhead@***.net - ICQ-UIN 2883757 -
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality is the only obstacle to happiness." - Unknown
Message no. 9
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 14:59:25 -0400
>Hugo Barbosa wrote:
>I'll begin by saying hello to everyone on this list. I'm new and have been
>following the discussions for a while before choosing to participate (lots
>of activity in this list... good sign!).
>
Hi again! (I sent this to Hugo before noticing that his Reply-To is
>overriding the list...)
>
>>Normally, maintaining a spell incurs a +2 target numbers to all
>>activities, but that seems, in certain cases, contrary to the nature of
>>the spell. (for example, casting Personal Combat Sense to assist your
>>combat abilities then having a +2 target number penalty in addition to
>>any unsoaked drain ...) So here is a possible solution:
>
>It makes sense to have a +2 target number if you're sustaining a spell. It
>implies that the mage or shaman is concentrating on maintaining the spell.
>Even though he is able to perform other actiong, even the slightest effort
>to concentrate translates into a penalty to the target numbers.
>
>He wasn't claiming that the +2 wasn't for a good reason, but that it
>made a given spell pretty much useless, which seems contrary to the
>intent of the spell.
>
>As for the apparent contradiction between the penalty and Personal Combat
>Sense, it is just that. Just an apparent contradiction. The purpose of the
>Personal Combat Sense spell is not to give a bonus to the target number but
>to offer additional Combat Pool dice. This would mean that the magician is
>
>However, it does do both. This means that PCS is only useful for those
>situations in which the mage cares *only* about survival (combat pool
>used for defense only), and not for those where the mage wants to do
>any damage. This doesn't apply to just PCS, either. There are a bunch
>of "booster" spells where the effect is drowned out by the +2 required
>to maintain the spell - FASA evidently saw this as a problem (or rather,
>annoyance) and presented the Focused Concentration edge.
>
>aware of his opponent's actions and is has that extra edge necessary to
>react to another's actions. Don't forget that while he is doing so, he's
>still concentrating on maintaining the spell so I think this +2 is
>justified. Sorta like trying to go into a fight while performing mental
>mathematical calculations at the same time. If you are devoting even a small
>percentage of your attention to something else, it's obvious that you'll
>have difficulty in devoting full attention to something.
>
>Well, I can easily chew gum and walk at the same time - the more trivial
>the task, the less attention it takes, and the less it affects your
>other actions. That's the effect that he was trying to duplicate.
>If you know something well enough, it becomes largely automatic.
>Granted, you have to know it pretty well, which is why he suggested
>subtracting 2 from the force of the spell (the inverse of Exclusive).
>
>I like the idea of being able to cast spells in the background without
>needing to buy an edge...
>
>James Ojaste
>
>
Message no. 10
From: Craig J Wilhelm Jr <craigjwjr@*********.NET>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 18:00:18 -0400
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Date: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 11:24 AM
Subject: Unobtrusive Spells


>Any spell may be learned as unobtrusive, which is the opposite of
>exclusive. An exclusive spell allows the spell to be cast as if it were
>2 points highr. An unobtrusive spell must be cast as if it was 2 points
>lower (ie you pay for Force 6 spell and get a Force 4). The benefit is
>that Sustaining one unobtrusive spell incurs no target number penalty,
>and each additional unobtrusive spell maintained incurs a +1 to all
>target numbers.


Interesting idea. Personally I'd go with something like -1 force and
either +2 drain target or +1 drain level. But then maybe that defeats the
purpose of the spell... Hmm. -2 force sounds good to me now. ;)

Craig "Knee Deep in the Blood of Swine" Wilhelm
Inside every living being, there's a dead one waiting to come out.
UIN: 1864690
-------------BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
v3.12
GAT/$ d- s+:+ a- C+++ U--- P+ L- E-- W++ N++
o K- w+ O> !M-- !V PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t--- 5+++
X-- R++ tv b++ DI-- D+(Q2++) G++ e++ h* r y++**
--------------END GEEK CODE BLOCK--------------
Message no. 11
From: aldur <Aldur@*********.NET>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 17:58:50 +0000
> >Well, I can easily chew gum and walk at the same time - the more trivial
> >the task, the less attention it takes, and the less it affects your
> >other actions. That's the effect that he was trying to duplicate.
> >If you know something well enough, it becomes largely automatic.
> >Granted, you have to know it pretty well, which is why he suggested
> >subtracting 2 from the force of the spell (the inverse of Exclusive).
> >
> >I like the idea of being able to cast spells in the background without
> >needing to buy an edge...
James Ojaste

Also remember that any mage that seriously wants a combat edge _BAD_
can always take the time and karma to quicken the spell to himself or
a focus... that has side effects too though... you have to balance
what u get against what u loose.
C-Ya on the Flip Side!
-Aldur

*****
Take the road not taken. The leaves crunch that much louder!
*****
http://www.ais-gwd.com/~aldur
*---*
Begin Geek Code Block:
*---*
GCSd-H-s:+g+(-)a19w+++!v?(+++)
C++++BU+P+L3-EN++K-W---M--!V
-po+Y+t+5+j++R+G""tv+b+++D+B---e+u**h
f+r*n----!y+K-W---M--!V
*---*
End Geek Code Block
*---*
Message no. 12
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 19:31:00 EDT
In a message dated 6/9/98 10:24:01 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

> Any spell may be learned as unobtrusive, which is the opposite of
> exclusive. An exclusive spell allows the spell to be cast as if it were
> 2 points highr. An unobtrusive spell must be cast as if it was 2 points
> lower (ie you pay for Force 6 spell and get a Force 4). The benefit is
> that Sustaining one unobtrusive spell incurs no target number penalty,
> and each additional unobtrusive spell maintained incurs a +1 to all
> target numbers.
>
> What do you think? too powerful? or just right?
>
NOT a bad idea. It's different than something we came up with here. We've
got a spell design option referred to as "Subconscious Mental Interaction"
(IIRC...it's on the Hacker House stuff)... it moves the energy in sustaining
a spell into the subconscious mind of the user, but it increases the initial
drain of the spell. Stupid thing is, no one uses it. I've considered it for
some spells with Binder now, but haven't implemented anything yet.

-K
Message no. 13
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 19:35:46 EDT
In a message dated 6/9/98 12:43:46 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

> Maybe now I can actully use that mageblade spell :) (the drain plus the
> T# penalty for sustaining made it impractical ... I did change the Mana
> version to stun damage to help with the drain and cuz it was a nice thing
> to do :)
>
Wow, this spell must have gone around the world at -LEAST- 300 times that I
have heard of.

You should see the -really- neat versions of Mageblade the guys here have come
up with (they -like- having the creator of that one here). Mageblade
(Elementality), by simply using the sustained elemental modifiers additions.
"Stunblade" is really popular, and it helps to take prisoners for
interrogations. Of course, the "Mageblades" variation hasn't been seen in a
while, and I'm not certain any of the group members would survive (Binder
would likely run the other direction, as he's seen it before).

-K
Message no. 14
From: Cobra <wgallas@*****.FR>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 14:37:10 +0200
> Normally, maintaining a spell incurs a +2 target numbers to all
> activities, but that seems, in certain cases, contrary to the nature of
> the spell. (for example, casting Personal Combat Sense to assist your
> combat abilities then having a +2 target number penalty in addition to
> any unsoaked drain ...) So here is a possible solution:
>
> Any spell may be learned as unobtrusive, which is the opposite of
> exclusive. An exclusive spell allows the spell to be cast as if it were
> 2 points highr. An unobtrusive spell must be cast as if it was 2 points
> lower (ie you pay for Force 6 spell and get a Force 4). The benefit is
> that Sustaining one unobtrusive spell incurs no target number penalty,
> and each additional unobtrusive spell maintained incurs a +1 to all
> target numbers.
>
> What do you think? too powerful? or just right?

Nope (IMO). Here are some reasons :
1) As Hugo Barbosa (welcome to the list ! :) explained, the target
modifier and the spell effect are different things. TN modifier comes
from concentration to maintain the spell while the bonus comes from
the effect of the spell. Casting some spells without quickening or
putting them into a spell lock is not very benecial and it causes no
problem IMO. First, as game ambiance, I prefer that the mage casts
these spells on members of the team than to boost himself to be the
big warrior. Second, as magic fondamentals, because the reasons fit
in my view of how magic works in SR.

2) If you use such a rule, you will have to consider some things. If
there is no TN modifier, I see two reasons.
* First, the reason given by Keith, which is the action of the
unconscious mind. In that case, the design of the spell should be
different (+1 to drain level seems a minimum) and this arises new
problems. Would the spell drop while the mage sleeps ? And more
generally, when do the unconscious mind stop doing the task ? Another
point is that the mage should be able to manipulate his unconscious
mind to do this, which IMO is a big implication.
* Second, the spell could be able to sustain itself. In that way,
this would be a bit like quickening but for every one, including non
initiates. Why not, it's your choice in your SR universe. But the
fact that it doesn't require karma would imply a big use of this.
Since you can't ground spells through sustained spells, that means
that corp mages would cast a bunch of those spells on each sec guard.
The reason is simple : It does them no wrong or problem and it's very
good for corp efficiency. There would also be a commercial use of it.
Have a spell cast on you for some fee to make your life easier. For
most usefull spells, it wouldn't cost much because many of those
spells do have low drain levels so a mage can cast a lot of them in a
day.

As you can see, there are big implications on choosing to allow it...


    -
Cobra.                   =
                      
###
     'When all is wrong, it will get worse.'    
   ##=
######
                         =
                        
#=
####
           ####  #### 
##     #####   =
####      ########
          ###   ##  ##
####   ##  ## ##  #=
#      ########
######### ###   ##  ## ##  ## #####  ###### #### #######
#########  ####  ####  #####  ##  ## ##  ## ##########
Message no. 15
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 09:22:59 -0400
Cobra wrote:
>> Any spell may be learned as unobtrusive, which is the opposite of
>> exclusive. An exclusive spell allows the spell to be cast as if it were
>> 2 points highr. An unobtrusive spell must be cast as if it was 2 points
>> lower (ie you pay for Force 6 spell and get a Force 4). The benefit is
>> that Sustaining one unobtrusive spell incurs no target number penalty,
>> and each additional unobtrusive spell maintained incurs a +1 to all
>> target numbers.
>>
>> What do you think? too powerful? or just right?
>
>Nope (IMO). Here are some reasons :

I know what you mean by "Nope" but only because I read the rest of
your message... :-)

>1) As Hugo Barbosa (welcome to the list ! :) explained, the target
>modifier and the spell effect are different things. TN modifier comes
>from concentration to maintain the spell while the bonus comes from
>the effect of the spell. Casting some spells without quickening or
>putting them into a spell lock is not very benecial and it causes no

Not beneficial? Well, self-defeating is more like it, but...

>problem IMO. First, as game ambiance, I prefer that the mage casts
>these spells on members of the team than to boost himself to be the
>big warrior. Second, as magic fondamentals, because the reasons fit
>in my view of how magic works in SR.

I'd like to see mages get into combat more - they're more likely to
get geeked. As for magic fundamentals, I guess we don't see magic
the same way. I see casting a F10 spell as much trickier than a F1
(not only in terms of more astral energy required, but it's a more
complex spell requiring more attention to detail). So take a dart
player for instance. A rank amateur will be doing well to hit the
board with all three darts. A pro can hit the bullseye with all three.
If you ask the pro to just hit the board anywhere, he can probably do
it blindfolded while hopping up and down on one leg while singing a
song about a humourously shaped vegetable.

It takes *much* less concentration to do something if you have lots of
practice with it.

>2) If you use such a rule, you will have to consider some things. If
>there is no TN modifier, I see two reasons.

Well, allowing a +0 TN could be nasty (and some people have commented
that the edge is bad enough on its own), so I'd suggest that the edge
allows any spell to be cast as Simple without the -2 force. Anyway...
(btw - I just think "Simple" is easier to use than "Non-Obtrusive")

>* First, the reason given by Keith, which is the action of the
>unconscious mind. In that case, the design of the spell should be
>different (+1 to drain level seems a minimum) and this arises new
>problems. Would the spell drop while the mage sleeps ? And more

Definitely - it's a conscious effort, but no more of an effort than
chewing gum. I don't know anybody who has claimed to chew gum while
sleeping...

>generally, when do the unconscious mind stop doing the task ? Another
>point is that the mage should be able to manipulate his unconscious
>mind to do this, which IMO is a big implication.

Like I said, I think it's still *conscious*, just not significant enough
for a +1 modifier.

>* Second, the spell could be able to sustain itself. In that way,
>this would be a bit like quickening but for every one, including non
>initiates. Why not, it's your choice in your SR universe. But the

Nope - that's quickening. Period. Quickening allows the spell to
remain there without thought, while unconscious, etc.

>fact that it doesn't require karma would imply a big use of this.
>Since you can't ground spells through sustained spells, that means
>that corp mages would cast a bunch of those spells on each sec guard.
>The reason is simple : It does them no wrong or problem and it's very
>good for corp efficiency. There would also be a commercial use of it.
>Have a spell cast on you for some fee to make your life easier. For
>most usefull spells, it wouldn't cost much because many of those
>spells do have low drain levels so a mage can cast a lot of them in a
>day.
>
>As you can see, there are big implications on choosing to allow it...

at a +0 TN. Which is why I think the edge and the casting method
shouldn't be cumulative. I don't see anything wrong with reducing
the modifier to a +1, myself. It just means that a) you can sustain
twice as many spells and b) if you're only sustaining one, you won't
be totally useless while doing it.

James Ojaste
Message no. 16
From: Hugo Barbosa <dwarin@****.TELEPAC.PT>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 14:32:27 +0100
>Yes - I agree fully that a mage sustaining a decent spell will be
>distracted. However, there's a huge difference (IMO) between sustaining
>a level 10 bullet barrier and a level 1 bullet barrier. One's a whole
>lot harder than the other to concentrate on.
>
>My point is that the better you get at something, the less you think
>about it. I've been typing for long enough that I don't have to think
>about what key is where - I can easily type blind. Right now I'm
>looking at one of the ceiling light panels in my office. See? I've
>gotten good enough that it doesn't really require much conscious
>thought. A +1 at most (mainly because I have to think about what I
>want to type next).
>
>Ditto for a mage. If the mage is good enough, he should be able to
>sustain simpler spells more easily than big complex ones. Thus the
>effective -2 to force and only +1 to TNs while sustaining. It doesn't
>change any of the SRII rules, it just adds something that's been
>awkward (the edge) until now.

I readily agree with you, James. The better you are at something, the less
effort you have to put into it to do it. However, I will keep the sustaining
rule as is for the sake of simplicity. The way I see it, if I were to take
into account the difficulty of sustaining a certain spell given its Force
(the higher the force, the more complex the spell), then I would have to
apply a different target number for each different Force, am I right?

> Any spell may be learned as unobtrusive, which is the opposite of
> exclusive. An exclusive spell allows the spell to be cast as if it were
> 2 points highr. An unobtrusive spell must be cast as if it was 2 points
> lower (ie you pay for Force 6 spell and get a Force 4). The benefit is
> that Sustaining one unobtrusive spell incurs no target number penalty,
> and each additional unobtrusive spell maintained incurs a +1 to all
> target numbers.

The problem here is that an exclusive spell is meant to be cast at an
effective higher force than normally possible. However, it does not grant
bonus or penalties to the target number for sustaining. The point here is
that the spell does not have that kind of penalty/bonus since it is an
exclusive spell. It cannot be cast while sustaining other spells. The
unobtrusive spell, if you take into account what I've been saying earlier,
is irrelevant. If you want to apply the rule "the higher the Force, the more
complex the spell", than you should devise a rule where the higher the
Force, the higher the penalty to the target number for sustaining.

Let's say I want to cast a Force 1 Personal Combat Sense plus a Force 4
Clairvoyance. According to our concept above, the mage should have different
penalties for sustaining both spells adding to a total to his target
numbers. Say, +2 for the PCS and +4 for the Clairvoyance (just rough
values!), adding up to a total of +6 to all his target numbers. The +2 to TN
for sustaining is a totally different thing from whether a spell should be
learned at a higher or lower force than usual. Notice that if you learn a
spell castable only with an expendable/reusable fetish, you still get the +2
to TN, meaning that the concept of higher Force is a different matter from
TN penalties. The latter translates the effort the mage puts into sustaining
the spell, the first takes into account the exact formula (version) of the
spell you learn.

Now, if you think you should devise a rule to take into account the
complexity (Force) of the spell. By all means, go ahead. Each gamemaster has
its own feeling for the Shadowrun universe and should adapt it to his/her
views. I think the universal +2 to TN is just used for the sake of
simplicity. At least, this is how I think.

Later...

Hugo Barbosa,
Portugal
Message no. 17
From: Tim Kerby <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 10:42:08 -0400
On 10 Jun 98, at 9:22, Ojaste,James [NCR] wrote:

> It takes *much* less concentration to do something if you have lots of
> practice with it.

Agreed, but I see the sustaining spell modifier as not so much as
concentrating on the spell, but fighting the pain of drain. That shit
hurts. The mage is hurting, and that is the reason for the sustained
spell mod. It makes sense to me, because Willpower is used to
overcome drain, so it seems like it is the pain that is distracting,
not so much the actual concentration.

--



=================================================================
- Tim Kerby - drekhead@***.net - ICQ-UIN 2883757 -
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality is the only obstacle to happiness." - Unknown
Message no. 18
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 12:20:10 -0400
Drekhead wrote:
>> It takes *much* less concentration to do something if you have lots of
>> practice with it.
>
>Agreed, but I see the sustaining spell modifier as not so much as
>concentrating on the spell, but fighting the pain of drain. That shit

Ah. Now *there's* something I hadn't considered. I wish FASA would
just tell us what all these things really are - is combat pool
"awareness", is intelligence "speed of thought", etc. It'd make these
discussions a lot easier.

>hurts. The mage is hurting, and that is the reason for the sustained
>spell mod. It makes sense to me, because Willpower is used to

But is the mage really hurting? I never really got that impression...

>overcome drain, so it seems like it is the pain that is distracting,
>not so much the actual concentration.

Interesting point, but I don't think that it'd hurt that much - if
so, why not use +1-3 based on the DL?

James Ojaste
Message no. 19
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 12:25:50 -0500
>
> Drekhead wrote:
> >> It takes *much* less concentration to do something if you have lots of
> >> practice with it.
> >
> >Agreed, but I see the sustaining spell modifier as not so much as
> >concentrating on the spell, but fighting the pain of drain. That shit
>
> Ah. Now *there's* something I hadn't considered. I wish FASA would
> just tell us what all these things really are - is combat pool
> "awareness", is intelligence "speed of thought", etc. It'd make
these
> discussions a lot easier.
>
But what fun with that be. If they clarified every rule and question, what
we do all day? :) Besides it leaves enough up to each GM that its never
dull.

> >hurts. The mage is hurting, and that is the reason for the sustained
> >spell mod. It makes sense to me, because Willpower is used to
>
> But is the mage really hurting? I never really got that impression...
>
Neither did I. I figured it was the equivalent of juggling while carrying
on a phone conversation. It doesn't hurt, but it splits your thought
processes. (Hmm...if you view it that way, would an encephalon reduce
a mages modifier? Hmm....Perhaps you can sustain a # of spells equal to
its rating, without penalty?).
I love encephalons, I'm always trying to find another use for them. :)


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker (850)644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Morality is moral only when it is voluntary.
Message no. 20
From: Tim Kerby <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 13:19:58 -0400
On 10 Jun 98, at 12:20, Ojaste,James [NCR] wrote:

> Drekhead wrote:
> >> It takes *much* less concentration to do something if you have lots of
> >> practice with it.
> >
> >Agreed, but I see the sustaining spell modifier as not so much as
> >concentrating on the spell, but fighting the pain of drain. That shit
>
> Ah. Now *there's* something I hadn't considered. I wish FASA would
> just tell us what all these things really are - is combat pool
> "awareness", is intelligence "speed of thought", etc. It'd make
these
> discussions a lot easier.

If FASA clarified those things, there wouldn't be discussions, or
this list. :)

> >hurts. The mage is hurting, and that is the reason for the sustained
> >spell mod. It makes sense to me, because Willpower is used to
>
> But is the mage really hurting? I never really got that impression...

All the novels portray it that way. Grimaced looks on the mages
faces, sweating bullets, shakes, bruising, etc.

> >overcome drain, so it seems like it is the pain that is distracting, not
> >so much the actual concentration.
>
> Interesting point, but I don't think that it'd hurt that much - if
> so, why not use +1-3 based on the DL?

That's a good point. I think it should be.

--

=================================================================
- Tim Kerby - drekhead@***.net - ICQ-UIN 2883757 -
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality is the only obstacle to happiness." - Unknown
Message no. 21
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 13:15:20 -0400
At 10:42 AM 6/10/98 -0400, you wrote:

>> It takes *much* less concentration to do something if you have lots of
>> practice with it.


I think some folks are forgetting that the act of casting a spell is far
more than the usage of a skill. The magician has to *very* carefully
manipulate the mana into very specific patterns and shapes and the like in
order for the spell to work right.

To use a previously used analogy of dart players, sure, the expert player
could jump around and do silly things and still hit the board most of the
time. But to cast a spell, you've got to hit that center dot (not
necessarily the exact center) *every single time.* There's far less room
for error in casting a spell than in throwing darts.

Casting and sustaining a spell isn't a passive activity, it's active. To
let a spell be sustained by the subconscious (or whatever) not only goes
against the spirit of the rules, but it opens things up to far too much abuse.

If you want magicians in combat, let them have either Quickenings or Spell
Locks so they can have spells like Armor, Combat Sense and Increased
Initiative.

As usual, if you want to do it in your game, it's your game. I just
wouldn't recommend it.

Erik J.


"Ladies & Gentleman, the newest member of the band, the one and only Spice
Boy, GRUMPY SPICE!!!" <and the crowd goes wild!!!>
Message no. 22
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 13:25:33 -0400
Drekhead wrote:
>> >hurts. The mage is hurting, and that is the reason for the sustained
>> >spell mod. It makes sense to me, because Willpower is used to
>>
>> But is the mage really hurting? I never really got that impression...
>
>All the novels portray it that way. Grimaced looks on the mages
>faces, sweating bullets, shakes, bruising, etc.

Ah. The only novels I've read are the Dragonheart novels.

>> >overcome drain, so it seems like it is the pain that is distracting, not
>> >so much the actual concentration.
>>
>> Interesting point, but I don't think that it'd hurt that much - if
>> so, why not use +1-3 based on the DL?
>
>That's a good point. I think it should be.

:-)

James Ojaste
Message no. 23
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 13:34:46 -0400
Erik Jameson wrote:
>>> It takes *much* less concentration to do something if you have lots of
>>> practice with it.
>
>I think some folks are forgetting that the act of casting a spell is far
>more than the usage of a skill. The magician has to *very* carefully
>manipulate the mana into very specific patterns and shapes and the like in
>order for the spell to work right.

Far more than the usage of a skill? Casting a spell: complex action.
Using a skill: complex action. Casting a spell: sorcery test. Using
a skill: skill test. OK, so it's not a pure sorcery test, but you
get the idea. I wouldn't say *far* more...

As for manipulating "mana", what about the clergyman who prays to his
god? What about the shaman who burns herbs? Sure, manipulating mana
fits into the hermetic role, and it makes some sense from an ED POV,
but we're never really told how hard it is, or how accurate you have
to be. It's just another perception gap.

>To use a previously used analogy of dart players, sure, the expert player
>could jump around and do silly things and still hit the board most of the
>time. But to cast a spell, you've got to hit that center dot (not
>necessarily the exact center) *every single time.* There's far less room
>for error in casting a spell than in throwing darts.

So? There's very little room for error, big deal. If the dart thrower
has to hit the board with all three darts or be killed, I'd still put
my money on the pro.

>Casting and sustaining a spell isn't a passive activity, it's active. To
>let a spell be sustained by the subconscious (or whatever) not only goes
>against the spirit of the rules, but it opens things up to far too much
>abuse.

No - I wouldn't let the subconscious take over. That makes quickenings
obsolete and thus doesn't work. Thus, a +0 is more or less out. But
SRC already has a way to get only +1, why not another way to do it
that costs karma (to buy the spell at effective force + 2) instead of
buying the edge?

>If you want magicians in combat, let them have either Quickenings or Spell
>Locks so they can have spells like Armor, Combat Sense and Increased
>Initiative.

Eh, that's a permanent thing. I think that the Simple spell concept
is a neat reflection of the Exclusive spell...

>As usual, if you want to do it in your game, it's your game. I just
>wouldn't recommend it.

Yeah, I know. I'm just arguing 'cause I like to argue. And no - I
wouldn't ever allow a +0 TN modifier - that would make mages utterly
disgusting.

James Ojaste
Message no. 24
From: Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 13:54:22 -0400
At 01:34 PM 6/10/98 -0400, you wrote:
>No - I wouldn't let the subconscious take over. That makes quickenings
>obsolete and thus doesn't work. Thus, a +0 is more or less out. But
>SRC already has a way to get only +1, why not another way to do it
>that costs karma (to buy the spell at effective force + 2) instead of
>buying the edge?
>
>>If you want magicians in combat, let them have either Quickenings or Spell
>>Locks so they can have spells like Armor, Combat Sense and Increased
>>Initiative.
>
>Eh, that's a permanent thing. I think that the Simple spell concept
>is a neat reflection of the Exclusive spell...

Why not just make it a variation on Exclusive spells. I think I saw this in
an article on shapeshifting in SR in some game mag. Anyway, the deal was
that you had an exclusive spell modifier when you learned it. But instead
of getting the +2 Force, you didn't have the Sustaining penalty. Other than
that, its like an exclusive spell.

So if the mage wants to go around sustaining that Comabat Sense spell
without a TN penalty, fine. But he can cast NO other spells, summon NO
spirits, (no Astral Perception?)etc. Seems a hefty trade-off, so that
you're not going to walk around doing it all the time. But in certain
circumstances, well worth it.

Sommers
Message no. 25
From: Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 20:14:26 +0200
About the discussion on sustaining spells, TN modifiers etcetera.

I have a few things to mention...

There's allready a way to reduce sustaining TN's for skilled mages
(the 'pros') called 'centering vs. penalties' which adequately represents
how skilled mages can ignore the distraction of sustaining, injuries etc.

There was a 'whiner' in one of the sourcebooks, Awakenings I think it was,
who complained about the sammies always wanting to get healed, while he
described how it hurt a lot to cast spells all the time, how it gave him minor
injuries all the time - nosebleeds in particular, but also some not - so
harmless stuff - and that he was tempted to deny them further healing.
He also complained that sustaining hurt(IIRC) - someone look up on that one,
it's bound to be there somewhere.

So-called counterproductive spells are, in their default configuration, not
limited to the mage, and as such makes sense. Personal versions are a limited
form of that spell, and you get a bonus for that limitation for a reason.
IF you need to sustain spells on yourself but aren't willing or able to use
foci or quickening, elementals can be used to sustain spells as well.

(Oh, you're a shaman? Tough for you, but you have spirits with spell - like
abilities that can do that a lot longer and cheaper, so I wouldn't be loosing
any sleep over that if I were you.).

All means of sustaining spells are expensive - either in penalties (normal
sustaining) cost (elementals, spell locks) or karma (centering, quickening).

I would be very careful about reducing one of these costs. They are currently
balanced - I've seen how even the 'focused concentration' edge drastically
changes spell use, for instance. Casting a spell at +2 force.. it doesn't seem
like enough, as long as many of the sustained spells are fairly cheap, drain
wise. Add an exclusive restriction and I think that would help - if not you'll
get 'sleep' casting invisible mages coming out of the walls...

Fade

--

ADVICE, n. The smallest current coin.
-Ambrose Bierce
Message no. 26
From: Tim Kerby <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 14:44:55 -0400
On 10 Jun 98, at 13:54, Sommers wrote:

> Why not just make it a variation on Exclusive spells. I think I saw this
> in an article on shapeshifting in SR in some game mag. Anyway, the deal
> was that you had an exclusive spell modifier when you learned it. But
> instead of getting the +2 Force, you didn't have the Sustaining penalty.
> Other than that, its like an exclusive spell.
>
> So if the mage wants to go around sustaining that Comabat Sense spell
> without a TN penalty, fine. But he can cast NO other spells, summon NO
> spirits, (no Astral Perception?)etc. Seems a hefty trade-off, so that
> you're not going to walk around doing it all the time. But in certain
> circumstances, well worth it.

That is an elegant solution I could live with. Thanks. (Jots new
house rule for my game...)

This reminds me of something I always wanted clarified: does adding
the exclusive and fetish restrictions to a spell give you more dice
to throw, or is the spell just treated as if it were always 2 Higher
in Force?

Along the same lines; focuses add dice, correct?

--

=================================================================
- Tim Kerby - drekhead@***.net - ICQ-UIN 2883757 -
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality is the only obstacle to happiness." - Unknown
Message no. 27
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:09:12 +0100
Ojaste,James [NCR] said on 12:20/10 Jun 98,...

> Ah. Now *there's* something I hadn't considered. I wish FASA would
> just tell us what all these things really are - is combat pool
> "awareness", is intelligence "speed of thought", etc. It'd make
these
> discussions a lot easier.

The attributes are explained in-depth the Companion (page 15),
and skills get a generic description on the next page, but there is
nothing about the various pools.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Stop asking questions that don't matter anyway...
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> 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. 28
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 17:02:05 -0400
At 01:34 PM 6/10/98 -0400, you wrote:

>>I think some folks are forgetting that the act of casting a spell is far
>>more than the usage of a skill. The magician has to *very* carefully
>>manipulate the mana into very specific patterns and shapes and the like in
>>order for the spell to work right.
>
>Far more than the usage of a skill? Casting a spell: complex action.
>Using a skill: complex action. Casting a spell: sorcery test. Using
>a skill: skill test. OK, so it's not a pure sorcery test, but you
>get the idea. I wouldn't say *far* more...

Well, it's not anywhere near as simple as pointing a gun and pulling the
trigger, now is it? It may not take much time, but's certainly highly
complex.

>As for manipulating "mana", what about the clergyman who prays to his
>god? What about the shaman who burns herbs? Sure, manipulating mana
>fits into the hermetic role, and it makes some sense from an ED POV,
>but we're never really told how hard it is, or how accurate you have
>to be. It's just another perception gap.

Manipulating mana is done by all magicians, not just mages. It doesn't
matter how it's done, shamans and houngans and mages all manipulate mana.
More than anything else, it's their own experience and frame of reference
that colors the experience, not that mages and shamans manipulate magic
differently.


>No - I wouldn't let the subconscious take over. That makes quickenings
>obsolete and thus doesn't work. Thus, a +0 is more or less out. But
>SRC already has a way to get only +1, why not another way to do it
>that costs karma (to buy the spell at effective force + 2) instead of
>buying the edge?

And it's likely something I wouldn't allow in my games simply because it's
potential for unbalancing the game. The SRCompanion is a collection of
optional rules remember. I *opt* not to use most of that crappy book.

>>If you want magicians in combat, let them have either Quickenings or Spell
>>Locks so they can have spells like Armor, Combat Sense and Increased
>>Initiative.
>
>Eh, that's a permanent thing. I think that the Simple spell concept
>is a neat reflection of the Exclusive spell...

Locks aren't permanent. You can turn them on or off as needed.


>Yeah, I know. I'm just arguing 'cause I like to argue. And no - I
>wouldn't ever allow a +0 TN modifier - that would make mages utterly
>disgusting.

Which is why I'm so resistant to the entire concept, regardless of
variation. Sure, it could be cool. Sure, it's an interesting idea. But
magicians can be the nastiest, most powerful sort of PC in Shadowrun after
a bit of Karma. As much as I love playing mages, as a GM I'm extremely
cautious to adopt any sort of rule that gives more power to any PC, but
especially magician PCs.

But again, it's your game to do with as you choose. I choose to run in
terror from this particular concept.

Erik J.


"Oh my God, they killed Dunkelzahn! You bastards!!!"
Message no. 29
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 16:27:54 -0500
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 10:42:08 -0400 Tim Kerby <drekhead@***.NET> writes:
>On 10 Jun 98, at 9:22, Ojaste,James [NCR] wrote:
>> It takes *much* less concentration to do something if you have lots of
>> practice with it.

>Agreed, but I see the sustaining spell modifier as not so much as
>concentrating on the spell, but fighting the pain of drain. That shit
>hurts. The mage is hurting, and that is the reason for the sustained
>spell mod. It makes sense to me, because Willpower is used to
>overcome drain, so it seems like it is the pain that is distracting,
>not so much the actual concentration.
>
>--
<SNIP>
> - Tim Kerby - drekhead@***.net - ICQ-UIN 2883757 -
<SNIP Sig>

If the T# is based on the pain of the Drain, why do you still have it if
you resist it completely?

On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 14:32:27 +0100 Hugo Barbosa <dwarin@****.telepac.pt>
writes:
>>Yes - I agree fully that a mage sustaining a decent spell will be
>>distracted. However, there's a huge difference (IMO) between
sustaining
>>a level 10 bullet barrier and a level 1 bullet barrier. One's a whole
>>lot harder than the other to concentrate on.
>>
>>My point is that the better you get at something, the less you think
>>about it. I've been typing for long enough that I don't have to think
>>about what key is where - I can easily type blind. Right now I'm
>>looking at one of the ceiling light panels in my office. See? I've
>>gotten good enough that it doesn't really require much conscious
>>thought. A +1 at most (mainly because I have to think about what I
>>want to type next).
>>
>>Ditto for a mage. If the mage is good enough, he should be able to
>>sustain simpler spells more easily than big complex ones. Thus the
>>effective -2 to force and only +1 to TNs while sustaining. It doesn't
>>change any of the SRII rules, it just adds something that's been
>>awkward (the edge) until now.

>I readily agree with you, James. The better you are at something, the
less
>effort you have to put into it to do it. However, I will keep the
sustaining
>rule as is for the sake of simplicity. The way I see it, if I were to
take
>into account the difficulty of sustaining a certain spell given its
Force
>(the higher the force, the more complex the spell), then I would have to
>apply a different target number for each different Force, am I right?

Actually, you and Tim gave me an idea for a different way to handle this
that takes into account the force of the spell you are casting without
learning anything new ... I'l explain at the end :)

>> Any spell may be learned as unobtrusive, which is the opposite of
>> exclusive. An exclusive spell allows the spell to be cast as if it
were
>> 2 points highr. An unobtrusive spell must be cast as if it was 2
points
>> lower (ie you pay for Force 6 spell and get a Force 4). The benefit
is
>> that Sustaining one unobtrusive spell incurs no target number penalty,
>> and each additional unobtrusive spell maintained incurs a +1 to all
>> target numbers.

>The problem here is that an exclusive spell is meant to be cast at an
>effective higher force than normally possible. However, it does not
grant
>bonus or penalties to the target number for sustaining. The point here
is
>that the spell does not have that kind of penalty/bonus since it is an
>exclusive spell. It cannot be cast while sustaining other spells. The
>unobtrusive spell, if you take into account what I've been saying
earlier,
>is irrelevant. If you want to apply the rule "the higher the Force, the
more
>complex the spell", than you should devise a rule where the higher the
>Force, the higher the penalty to the target number for sustaining.
>
>Let's say I want to cast a Force 1 Personal Combat Sense plus a Force 4
>Clairvoyance. According to our concept above, the mage should have
different
>penalties for sustaining both spells adding to a total to his target
>numbers. Say, +2 for the PCS and +4 for the Clairvoyance (just rough
>values!), adding up to a total of +6 to all his target numbers. The +2
to TN
>for sustaining is a totally different thing from whether a spell should
be
>learned at a higher or lower force than usual. Notice that if you learn
a
>spell castable only with an expendable/reusable fetish, you still get
the +2
>to TN, meaning that the concept of higher Force is a different matter
from
>TN penalties. The latter translates the effort the mage puts into
sustaining
>the spell, the first takes into account the exact formula (version) of
the
>spell you learn.
>
>Now, if you think you should devise a rule to take into account the
>complexity (Force) of the spell. By all means, go ahead. Each gamemaster
has
>its own feeling for the Shadowrun universe and should adapt it to
his/her
>views. I think the universal +2 to TN is just used for the sake of
>simplicity. At least, this is how I think.
>
>Later...
>
>Hugo Barbosa,
>Portugal

Here we go. A different optional rule that I think takes into account
what you were complaining about :)

Option 1) A mage can choose to subtract successes from any where he/she
chooses (ie drain, spell casting, etc) and each two successes subtracted
reduces the target number modifier for sustaining a spell by one. How
many successes and from where they will be subtracted must be declared
before any dice are rolled.
Option 2) Successes in a Drain Test beyond those neccessary to eliminate
the drain reduce the target number modifier for sustaining spells. Each
two additional successes reduce the target number modifier by 1.

Unobtrusive Spell Option: The elimanation/reduction of the target number
modifier only applies to rolls "attuned" to the spell in question (ie for
Personal Combat Sense that would mean Combat skills, for Mageblade just
the Armed Combat skill (IIRC). For Bullet Barrier there isn't any and so
Bullet Barrier couldn't be purchased as unobtrusive... same thing for
healing spells ...)

D.Ghost (not in Portugal, but from Portugal :)
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
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
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 30
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 20:34:55 EDT
Please note, I did snip some of the conversation up to this point concerning
differences in opinion and the like...


In a message dated 6/10/98 8:23:48 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA writes:

> d like to see mages get into combat more - they're more likely to
> get geeked. As for magic fundamentals, I guess we don't see magic
> the same way. I see casting a F10 spell as much trickier than a F1
> (not only in terms of more astral energy required, but it's a more
> complex spell requiring more attention to detail). So take a dart
> player for instance. A rank amateur will be doing well to hit the
> board with all three darts. A pro can hit the bullseye with all three.
> If you ask the pro to just hit the board anywhere, he can probably do
> it blindfolded while hopping up and down on one leg while singing a
> song about a humourously shaped vegetable.

And there are -always- the exceptions.

> It takes *much* less concentration to do something if you have lots of
> practice with it.

True, but that would indicate a familiarity with a given spell IMO. Has it
ever occurrred to anyone to use the "+1 modifier for doing something new" for
usage with spells as well, especially for those spells that the magician in
question has either just learned or has never cast "in the field?"

> >* First, the reason given by Keith, which is the action of the
> >unconscious mind. In that case, the design of the spell should be
> >different (+1 to drain level seems a minimum) and this arises new
> >problems. Would the spell drop while the mage sleeps ? And more
>
> Definitely - it's a conscious effort, but no more of an effort than
> chewing gum. I don't know anybody who has claimed to chew gum while
> sleeping...

James, I think you were missing the idea of the "Subconscious Interaction"
spell sustaining design modification I was bringing up. The idea is to route
at least some of the "untapped potential" within the subconscious mind towards
the "Sustaining" of a given magical effect.

And btw, I -HAVE- known people who do both, just like I know people who have
taught themselves how to drive in their sleep.

> >generally, when do the unconscious mind stop doing the task ? Another
> >point is that the mage should be able to manipulate his unconscious
> >mind to do this, which IMO is a big implication.
>
> Like I said, I think it's still *conscious*, just not significant enough
> for a +1 modifier.

Ah, but Mongoose brings up a very valid point. What -IF- the spell is
designed with a Subconscious Interaction design in mind??? That would be
-WAY- cool if implemented with caution on the part of the player-character AND
the GM. Think of it, a "Combat Sense" spell that isn't "off" when the
individual goes to sleep. Let's remember folks, quickenings/anchorings cost
Karma, and that is often in short supply while in a threatening/field
situation.

> >* Second, the spell could be able to sustain itself. In that way,
> >this would be a bit like quickening but for every one, including non
> >initiates. Why not, it's your choice in your SR universe. But the
>
> Nope - that's quickening. Period. Quickening allows the spell to
> remain there without thought, while unconscious, etc.

Ah, I can see that James definitely has a FAR different view on this
subject...

> >fact that it doesn't require karma would imply a big use of this.
> >Since you can't ground spells through sustained spells, that means
> >that corp mages would cast a bunch of those spells on each sec guard.
> >The reason is simple : It does them no wrong or problem and it's very
> >good for corp efficiency. There would also be a commercial use of it.
> >Have a spell cast on you for some fee to make your life easier. For
> >most usefull spells, it wouldn't cost much because many of those
> >spells do have low drain levels so a mage can cast a lot of them in a
> >day.
> >
> >As you can see, there are big implications on choosing to allow it...
>
> at a +0 TN. Which is why I think the edge and the casting method
> shouldn't be cumulative. I don't see anything wrong with reducing
> the modifier to a +1, myself. It just means that a) you can sustain
> twice as many spells and b) if you're only sustaining one, you won't
> be totally useless while doing it.

Yep, gotta get that Subconscious Interaction's modifier completely detailed.
It is actually a bit closer in -MY- mind at least to the conversation that
Mongoose keeps bringing up here.

-K
Message no. 31
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 23:10:35 EDT
In a message dated 6/11/98 12:35:48 AM !!!First Boot!!!, Ereskanti@***.COM
writes:

> > >generally, when do the unconscious mind stop doing the task ? Another
> > >point is that the mage should be able to manipulate his unconscious
> > >mind to do this, which IMO is a big implication.
> >
> > Like I said, I think it's still *conscious*, just not significant enough
> > for a +1 modifier.
>
> Ah, but Mongoose brings up a very valid point. What -IF- the spell is
> designed with a Subconscious Interaction design in mind??? That would be
> -WAY- cool if implemented with caution on the part of the player-character
> AND
> the GM. Think of it, a "Combat Sense" spell that isn't "off"
when the
> individual goes to sleep. Let's remember folks, quickenings/anchorings
cost
> Karma, and that is often in short supply while in a threatening/field
> situation.
>
How about applying the Deep Mind Interaction drain code to spells that you
want to have with a lesser sustaining modifier. As most conscious, active
thought occurs in the Superficial Mind, this would then be moving some of the
realm of the spell into the subconscious. Though there could also be a side-
effect, what if the subconscious were to begin messing around with the spell,
making it do things the caster did not originally intend to have happen (this
would be especially true with mages who are also Multiple Personality - which
we all are to some extent or another).

And if there is anyone now that I can think can best fit this description is
someone in my family has over 100 different personalities of both sexes
(though mostly female) and she has mentioned the times she has done some
interesting multi-tasking. For instance, she can be driving, smoking, and
carrying on a conversation, and four personalities are going at the same time.
One smoking, one driving, one drinking a soda, and her (the primary
personality) doing all of the talking.

-Mike
Message no. 32
From: wafflemiester <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 01:51:30 -0500
> Re: Unobtrusive Spells (Rune Fostervoll , Tue 12:34)

> I've heard of a solution where exclusive spells may be sustained 'for free'.
>
> I've even heard it's canon, but I don't remember seeing that...

Just the opposite. An exclusive spell means you can't doANY other sort
of magic while sustaining (or casting) it, including allocating spell
defense...

If those "unobtrusive spells" were two force less (but not for drain),
and count as exclusive in this sense, I could see them not fragging your
other activities, maybe, since your entire magic ability is going into
that spell. I rather prefer the "sustaining dice" idea I proposed in
anoher post, though.

-Mongoose
Message no. 33
From: wafflemiester <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 04:02:25 -0500
> Re: Unobtrusive Spells (Lehlan Decker , Wed 12:25)

> Neither did I. I figured it was the equivalent of juggling while carrying
> on a phone conversation. It doesn't hurt, but it splits your thought
> processes. (Hmm...if you view it that way, would an encephalon reduce
> a mages modifier? Hmm....Perhaps you can sustain a # of spells equal to
> its rating, without penalty?).
> I love encephalons, I'm always trying to find another use for them. :)

The encehalon explicitely has no benift to any magic use / talent.

-Mongoose
Message no. 34
From: Cobra <wgallas@*****.FR>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 14:59:29 +0200
> >overcome drain, so it seems like it is the pain that is distracting,
> >not so much the actual concentration.
>
> Interesting point, but I don't think that it'd hurt that much - if
> so, why not use +1-3 based on the DL?

This is an interesting idea which I think I'll use. This makes the
increase +1, +2 or +3 some use.


    -
Cobra.                   =
                      
###
     'When all is wrong, it will get worse.'    
   ##=
######
                         =
                        
#=
####
           ####  #### 
##     #####   =
####      ########
          ###   ##  ##
####   ##  ## ##  #=
#      ########
######### ###   ##  ## ##  ## #####  ###### #### #######
#########  ####  ####  #####  ##  ## ##  ## ##########
Message no. 35
From: Cobra <wgallas@*****.FR>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 15:43:00 +0200
> Yep, gotta get that Subconscious Interaction's modifier completely detai=
led.
> It is actually a bit closer in -MY- mind at least to the conversation th=
at
> Mongoose keeps bringing up here.

This isn't Mongoose but me... :)


    -
Cobra.                   =
                      
###
     'When all is wrong, it will get worse.'    
   ##=
######
                         =
                        
#=
####
           ####  #### 
##     #####   =
####      ########
          ###   ##  ##
####   ##  ## ##  #=
#      ########
######### ###   ##  ## ##  ## #####  ###### #### #######
#########  ####  ####  #####  ##  ## ##  ## ##########
Message no. 36
From: Cobra <wgallas@*****.FR>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 15:43:00 +0200
> >Casting and sustaining a spell isn't a passive activity, it's active. =
To
> >let a spell be sustained by the subconscious (or whatever) not only goe=
s
> >against the spirit of the rules, but it opens things up to far too much
> >abuse.
>
> No - I wouldn't let the subconscious take over. That makes quickenings
> obsolete and thus doesn't work. Thus, a +0 is more or less out. But
> SRC already has a way to get only +1, why not another way to do it
> that costs karma (to buy the spell at effective force + 2) instead of
> buying the edge?

I prefer that one. If the mage spended more karma to learn this
spell, this could be the fact that he spends a lot more time to make
the sustaining more easier. However, I won't use it... :)


    -
Cobra.                   =
                      
###
     'When all is wrong, it will get worse.'    
   ##=
######
                         =
                        
#=
####
           ####  #### 
##     #####   =
####      ########
          ###   ##  ##
####   ##  ## ##  #=
#      ########
######### ###   ##  ## ##  ## #####  ###### #### #######
#########  ####  ####  #####  ##  ## ##  ## ##########
Message no. 37
From: Cobra <wgallas@*****.FR>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 15:43:00 +0200
> Here we go. A different optional rule that I think takes into account
> what you were complaining about :)
>
> Option 1) A mage can choose to subtract successes from any where he/she
> chooses (ie drain, spell casting, etc) and each two successes subtracted
> reduces the target number modifier for sustaining a spell by one. How
> many successes and from where they will be subtracted must be declared
> before any dice are rolled.
> Option 2) Successes in a Drain Test beyond those neccessary to eliminate
> the drain reduce the target number modifier for sustaining spells. Each
> two additional successes reduce the target number modifier by 1.

Interesting idea but in that case, I would increase a bit the TN from
sustaining. Let's say a TN modifier based on DL (1 to 4) like James'
proposal. It seems fine and useful.


    -
Cobra.                   =
                      
###
     'When all is wrong, it will get worse.'    
   ##=
######
                         =
                        
#=
####
           ####  #### 
##     #####   =
####      ########
          ###   ##  ##
####   ##  ## ##  #=
#      ########
######### ###   ##  ## ##  ## #####  ###### #### #######
#########  ####  ####  #####  ##  ## ##  ## ##########
Message no. 38
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:45:17 -0400
Erik Jameson wrote:
>>>I think some folks are forgetting that the act of casting a spell is far
>>>more than the usage of a skill.
[snip]
>>As for manipulating "mana", what about the clergyman who prays to his
>>god? What about the shaman who burns herbs? Sure, manipulating mana
>>fits into the hermetic role, and it makes some sense from an ED POV,
>>but we're never really told how hard it is, or how accurate you have
>>to be. It's just another perception gap.
>
>Manipulating mana is done by all magicians, not just mages. It doesn't
>matter how it's done, shamans and houngans and mages all manipulate mana.
>More than anything else, it's their own experience and frame of reference
>that colors the experience, not that mages and shamans manipulate magic
>differently.

But how much concentration does it take to burn herbs? How much
concentration to mumble a prayer? Hermetics *want* to manipulate
astral energy directly, but others often want to do it through a 3rd
party so to speak. It's just never really mentionned.

>>No - I wouldn't let the subconscious take over. That makes quickenings
>>obsolete and thus doesn't work. Thus, a +0 is more or less out. But
>>SRC already has a way to get only +1, why not another way to do it
>>that costs karma (to buy the spell at effective force + 2) instead of
>>buying the edge?
>
>And it's likely something I wouldn't allow in my games simply because it's
>potential for unbalancing the game. The SRCompanion is a collection of
>optional rules remember. I *opt* not to use most of that crappy book.

OK, I apparently liked the book a whole lot more than you (I thought it
was decent, but most importantly opened up new directions).

>>>If you want magicians in combat, let them have either Quickenings or Spell
>>>Locks so they can have spells like Armor, Combat Sense and Increased
>>>Initiative.
>>
>>Eh, that's a permanent thing. I think that the Simple spell concept
>>is a neat reflection of the Exclusive spell...
>
>Locks aren't permanent. You can turn them on or off as needed.

Just like my computer isn't permanent? I didn't mean permanently *on*,
I meant "sit down and build an artifact" permanent. In many cases, it'd
be better than a Simple spell (costing less karma, +0 modifier), but it
can be grounded through. A quickening is also usually better (costs
less karma, can be made tougher than a Simple spell, same +0), but it's
always on. A Simple spell costs more karma, has a +1 modifier, can't
work while unconscious, isn't always on.

>>Yeah, I know. I'm just arguing 'cause I like to argue. And no - I
>>wouldn't ever allow a +0 TN modifier - that would make mages utterly
>>disgusting.
>
>Which is why I'm so resistant to the entire concept, regardless of
>variation. Sure, it could be cool. Sure, it's an interesting idea. But
>magicians can be the nastiest, most powerful sort of PC in Shadowrun after
>a bit of Karma. As much as I love playing mages, as a GM I'm extremely
>cautious to adopt any sort of rule that gives more power to any PC, but
>especially magician PCs.

I'm not sure it does give them more power. It has its place, but mages
already have locks and quickenings. I don't see it as better, just
different.

>But again, it's your game to do with as you choose. I choose to run in
>terror from this particular concept.

I think that's a bit extreme... :-)

James Ojaste
Message no. 39
From: Paul Gettle <pgettle@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 10:24:17 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 03:43 PM 6/11/98 +0200, Cobra wrote:
>> It is actually a bit closer in -MY- mind at least to the
conversation that
>> Mongoose keeps bringing up here.
>
>This isn't Mongoose but me... :)

Which is very odd that anyone would mistake the two of you. Mongeese
and snakes are natural enimies, after all.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNX/ojs2C0fERRVM5AQGhggP/W0dVYE/maLNjp14r24caRBO8PlgtNtWr
2vYhup9JqRCX8yrF3GtCXVPSptopLSOTI4XYVDz5ibgM9SY59BZ9TtvpKvk9TkVG
wmIOQQ+Q7Zc6vKdW0OZYfBd/Sp+j0rEAK5AphBt02XqEf4oK3fGIs4C4x8q8DxKV
GFxsBW9nduQ=
=0rOf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle (pgettle@********.net)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:11455339 (RSA 1024, created 97/08/08)
625A FFF0 76DC A077 D21C 556B BB58 00AA
Message no. 40
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 15:02:18 -0400
At 09:45 AM 6/11/98 -0400, you wrote:

>>Manipulating mana is done by all magicians, not just mages. It doesn't
>>matter how it's done, shamans and houngans and mages all manipulate mana.
>>More than anything else, it's their own experience and frame of reference
>>that colors the experience, not that mages and shamans manipulate magic
>>differently.
>
>But how much concentration does it take to burn herbs? How much
>concentration to mumble a prayer? Hermetics *want* to manipulate
>astral energy directly, but others often want to do it through a 3rd
>party so to speak. It's just never really mentionned.

Yes, most if not all hermetics see mana as a force, perhaps akin to gravity
and such, that they can manipulate. But that's pretty much what the others
do also, regardless of what their mental framework or point of reference is.

A hermetic, a shaman, a houngan and a druid all cast a manabolt the same
way. What differs is how they view that act. They still have to
manipulate that mana in some way, regardless of if it's seen as fluid
dynamics, forces of nature or channeling the power of God or a God.


>OK, I apparently liked the book a whole lot more than you (I thought it
>was decent, but most importantly opened up new directions).

Some of it was okay. But FASA should have spent some of that page space
fixing and clarifying old rules instead of just giving us new ones.

>Just like my computer isn't permanent? I didn't mean permanently *on*,
>I meant "sit down and build an artifact" permanent. In many cases, it'd

Point taken.

>be better than a Simple spell (costing less karma, +0 modifier), but it
>can be grounded through.

Only when active.

>A quickening is also usually better (costs

Sometimes yes. I'm not a huge fan of quickenings though.

>I'm not sure it does give them more power. It has its place, but mages
>already have locks and quickenings. I don't see it as better, just
>different.

Well, it can't be grounded through and it isn't always on, or permanent. I
can just see mages, right before a run, using this Simple spell concept to
slap on Armor, Personal Combat Sense, Increase Reaction+4 and Increase
Reflexes+3d6 and have less to worry about than the mage who's got those
quickened or locked. High-powered mages would likely have all those spells
to protect them, but they are either locked or quickened. A brand spanking
new PC could use the Simple spell idea and be almost as bad-ass as an
initiated mage, at least in straight-forward combat.

>>But again, it's your game to do with as you choose. I choose to run in
>>terror from this particular concept.
>
>I think that's a bit extreme... :-)

Well, being someone who plays mages a lot, and having at one time played
with a magician munchkin for a while (he wasn't a true munchkin, but he
bent and distorted the rules in a major way, but he didn't have to "win"
the game), I can look at most magic rules at a glance and see how they can
be used and abused. And while your concept is interesting and "noble" I
see far too many possibilities for abuse.

Erik J.
Message no. 41
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 15:50:30 -0400
Erik Jameson wrote:
[SNIP!]
>>be better than a Simple spell (costing less karma, +0 modifier), but it
>>can be grounded through.
>
>Only when active.
>
>>A quickening is also usually better (costs
>
>Sometimes yes. I'm not a huge fan of quickenings though.
>
>>I'm not sure it does give them more power. It has its place, but mages
>>already have locks and quickenings. I don't see it as better, just
>>different.
>
>Well, it can't be grounded through and it isn't always on, or permanent. I

And gives a +1 for sustaining.

>can just see mages, right before a run, using this Simple spell concept to
>slap on Armor, Personal Combat Sense, Increase Reaction+4 and Increase
>Reflexes+3d6 and have less to worry about than the mage who's got those
>quickened or locked. High-powered mages would likely have all those spells

Eep! Yeah, initiates could center to cast those on themselves, but then
they'd be at +4 for everything else... Not pretty!

>to protect them, but they are either locked or quickened. A brand spanking
>new PC could use the Simple spell idea and be almost as bad-ass as an
>initiated mage, at least in straight-forward combat.

Provided that they only try to sustain one or two spells...

>>>But again, it's your game to do with as you choose. I choose to run in
>>>terror from this particular concept.
>>
>>I think that's a bit extreme... :-)
>
>Well, being someone who plays mages a lot, and having at one time played
>with a magician munchkin for a while (he wasn't a true munchkin, but he
>bent and distorted the rules in a major way, but he didn't have to "win"
>the game), I can look at most magic rules at a glance and see how they can
>be used and abused. And while your concept is interesting and "noble" I
>see far too many possibilities for abuse.

First off, it wasn't my concept. Second, I don't see it as "noble",
just
"elegant". It fills in the rules a bit. It clarifies things a little
for me and makes it seem more realistic. To each his own.
James Ojaste
Message no. 42
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 18:17:07 -0400
At 03:50 PM 6/11/98 -0400, you wrote:

>>Well, being someone who plays mages a lot, and having at one time played
>>with a magician munchkin for a while (he wasn't a true munchkin, but he
>>bent and distorted the rules in a major way, but he didn't have to "win"
>>the game), I can look at most magic rules at a glance and see how they can
>>be used and abused. And while your concept is interesting and "noble" I
>>see far too many possibilities for abuse.
>
>First off, it wasn't my concept. Second, I don't see it as "noble",
>just
>"elegant". It fills in the rules a bit. It clarifies things a little
>for me and makes it seem more realistic. To each his own.

Eh, I was using the figurative "you" not as in specific to James Ojaste.

But as neither of us are moving the other, I'll just drop the concept and
move on the to the next thing to argue!

Erik J.


"Oh my God, they killed Dunkelzahn! You bastards!!!"
Message no. 43
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 16:17:54 -0500
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 15:43:00 +0200 Cobra <wgallas@*****.FR> writes:
>> Here we go. A different optional rule that I think takes into account
>> what you were complaining about :)
>>
>> Option 1) A mage can choose to subtract successes from any where
he/she
>> chooses (ie drain, spell casting, etc) and each two successes
subtracted
>> reduces the target number modifier for sustaining a spell by one. How
>> many successes and from where they will be subtracted must be declared
>> before any dice are rolled.
>> Option 2) Successes in a Drain Test beyond those neccessary to
eliminate
>> the drain reduce the target number modifier for sustaining spells.
Each
>> two additional successes reduce the target number modifier by 1.

>Interesting idea but in that case, I would increase a bit the TN from
>sustaining. Let's say a TN modifier based on DL (1 to 4) like James'
>proposal. It seems fine and useful.

>    -
>Cobra.
<SNIP Sig>

So a mage Casts a spell with deadly drain and reduces the drain by 1
level to serious now has +3 to all target numbers from the drain and +4
because he/she's maintaining a spell with dealdy drain for a total of +7
to all target numbers?

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
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
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 44
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:51:24 EDT
In a message dated 6/11/98 8:36:12 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
wgallas@*****.FR writes:

> > Yep, gotta get that Subconscious Interaction's modifier completely
detailed.
>
> > It is actually a bit closer in -MY- mind at least to the conversation
that
> > Mongoose keeps bringing up here.
>
> This isn't Mongoose but me... :)
>
Ooops, sorry there, got things confused...
-K
Message no. 45
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:31:08 -0500
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:55:13 EDT K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
writes:
>In a message dated 6/11/98 8:36:56 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
>wgallas@*****.FR writes:
>> Interesting idea but in that case, I would increase a bit the TN from
>> sustaining. Let's say a TN modifier based on DL (1 to 4) like James'
>> proposal. It seems fine and useful.

>Ya know folks, what -IF- the sustaining modifier was based more upon the
drain
>of the spell in question? Light = 1 Point, Moderate = 2 Points, Serious
= 3
>Points, and Deadly = 4 or 5???
>
>Focused Concentration would be worth "1 point of modifier reduction" in
this
>case.
>
>To me this makes a bit more sense, as a "Lightly Draining" spell should,
>theoretically, be only "Lightly Distracting" IMO. Deadly Draining would
of
>course be "Deadly Distractive" on the other hand...
>
>-K

this is an interesting idea but it puts the mage in double jeopardy ...
another idea is to say that above is not cumalative with the wound (Ie
sustaining a deadly drain spell with a serious wound is +4 to all target
numbers not +7 ...)

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
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
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 46
From: Danyel N Woods <9604801@********.AC.NZ>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 13:37:04 +1200
Quoth Alfredo B Alves (1231 12-06-98 NZT):

<<SLICE>>
>>Ya know folks, what -IF- the sustaining modifier was based more upon
the drain
>>of the spell in question? Light = 1 Point, Moderate = 2 Points,
Serious = 3
>>Points, and Deadly = 4 or 5???
>>
>>Focused Concentration would be worth "1 point of modifier reduction"
in this
>>case.
>>
>>To me this makes a bit more sense, as a "Lightly Draining" spell
should,
>>theoretically, be only "Lightly Distracting" IMO. Deadly Draining
would of
>>course be "Deadly Distractive" on the other hand...
<<SLICE .sig>>

>this is an interesting idea but it puts the mage in double jeopardy ...
>another idea is to say that above is not cumalative with the wound (Ie
>sustaining a deadly drain spell with a serious wound is +4 to all
target
>numbers not +7 ...)

Yeah, that's fine - if you want mages who can 'throw magic all day, then
jam their love interest all night' (2XS). For my .02Y, if a mage with a
Serious wound wants to sustain a Deadly-Drain spell, fine - but you pays
your money and you takes your chances - at +7 to TN. Hurts, neh? So
does constantly channelling that level of mana when you've had an arm
blown off. ALL TN penalties are cumulative, and magicians shouldn't get
a free ride on sustaining.

Incidentally, I require Drain resistance tests for sustained spells on
*each* of the mage's 'action' phases until he either drops the spell or
collapses. To paraphrase Murphy's Laws of Combat: "You are not
invincible: Marines, magicians and fighter pilots take note."
Magicians are NOT invincible - especially in my game.

Danyel Woods - 9604801@********.ac.nz
'God hates me, that's what it is.'
'Hate him back. It works for me.'
Message no. 47
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:31:33 -0500
On Fri, 12 Jun 1998 13:37:04 +1200 Danyel N Woods
<9604801@********.AC.NZ> writes:
>Quoth Alfredo B Alves (1231 12-06-98 NZT):
><<SLICE>>
>> >Ya know folks, what -IF- the sustaining modifier was based more upon
the
>> >drain of the spell in question? Light = 1 Point, Moderate = 2
Points,
>> >Serious = 3 Points, and Deadly = 4 or 5???
>> >
>> >Focused Concentration would be worth "1 point of modifier
reduction"
in
>> >this case.
>> >
>> >To me this makes a bit more sense, as a "Lightly Draining" spell
should,
>> >theoretically, be only "Lightly Distracting" IMO. Deadly Draining
would of
>> >course be "Deadly Distractive" on the other hand...
><<SLICE .sig>>

>>this is an interesting idea but it puts the mage in double jeopardy ...
>>another idea is to say that above is not cumalative with the wound (Ie
>>sustaining a deadly drain spell with a serious wound is +4 to alltarget
>>numbers not +7 ...)

>Yeah, that's fine - if you want mages who can 'throw magic all day, then
>jam their love interest all night' (2XS). For my .02Y, if a mage with a
>Serious wound wants to sustain a Deadly-Drain spell, fine - but you pays
>your money and you takes your chances - at +7 to TN. Hurts, neh? So
>does constantly channelling that level of mana when you've had an arm
>blown off. ALL TN penalties are cumulative, and magicians shouldn't get
>a free ride on sustaining.

I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort ... The serious wound in my
example wasn't from an injury, it was from drain ... ie a mage drops his
deadly drain down to serious and according to the optional rule offered
up, he has a +7 to all target numbers ... to use a different example (the
first was wors case scenario), a mage cast personal combat sense a spell
with medium drain, and soaks none of the drain ... suddenly he has +4 to
all target numbers ... he's dman near useless ... with my suggestion,
while he's sustaining the spell, he takes the lesser of +2 the mods
caused by the drain or +2 because he's sustaining a moderate drain spell
which means, +2 to all target numbers ... if the mage soaked all of the
drain, he'll still have +2 because he's sustaining a moderate drain spell
... this get complicated with other wound mods so I left that discussion
out ... I'm not going to use the system orignally mentioned nor the
alternate I mentioned (and mabye not even the original idea I posted
either ...)

>Incidentally, I require Drain resistance tests for sustained spells on
>*each* of the mage's 'action' phases until he either drops the spell or
>collapses. To paraphrase Murphy's Laws of Combat: "You are not
>invincible: Marines, magicians and fighter pilots take note."
>Magicians are NOT invincible - especially in my game.

Not invincible? damn straight, they're DEAD in your game ... that kind of
house rule is going to push the players towards instant duration spells
like combat and healing spells are screwed ... no mage can resist the
drain from a decent healing spell for a serious or deadly wound ... and
most won't be able to heal a moderate wound either ... what do you have
against mages?

> Danyel Woods
<SNIP Sig>

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
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
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 48
From: Cobra <wgallas@*****.FR>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 14:22:27 +0200
> this is an interesting idea but it puts the mage in double jeopardy ...
> another idea is to say that above is not cumalative with the wound (Ie
> sustaining a deadly drain spell with a serious wound is +4 to all target
> numbers not +7 ...)

Another possibility (that I won't use) is to allow a skill for
sustaining spells. For each point in this skill, he can reduce the
target number modifier by one.


    -
Cobra.                   =
                      
###
     'When all is wrong, it will get worse.'    
   ##=
######
                         =
                        
#=
####
           ####  #### 
##     #####   =
####      ########
          ###   ##  ##
####   ##  ## ##  #=
#      ########
######### ###   ##  ## ##  ## #####  ###### #### #######
#########  ####  ####  #####  ##  ## ##  ## ##########
Message no. 49
From: Cobra <wgallas@*****.FR>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 14:22:27 +0200
>> Interesting idea but in that case, I would increase a bit the TN from
>> sustaining. Let's say a TN modifier based on DL (1 to 4) like James'
>> proposal. It seems fine and useful.

>Ya know folks, what -IF- the sustaining modifier was based more upon the =
drain
>of the spell in question? Light = 1 Point, Moderate = 2 Points, Seri=
ous = 3
>Points, and Deadly = 4 or 5???
>
>Focused Concentration would be worth "1 point of modifier reduction" in t=
his
>case.
>
>To me this makes a bit more sense, as a "Lightly Draining" spell should,
>theoretically, be only "Lightly Distracting" IMO. Deadly Draining would =
of
>course be "Deadly Distractive" on the other hand...

Yep. That's what I was thinking about.


    -
Cobra.                   =
                      
###
     'When all is wrong, it will get worse.'    
   ##=
######
                         =
                        
#=
####
           ####  #### 
##     #####   =
####      ########
          ###   ##  ##
####   ##  ## ##  #=
#      ########
######### ###   ##  ## ##  ## #####  ###### #### #######
#########  ####  ####  #####  ##  ## ##  ## ##########
Message no. 50
From: Cobra <wgallas@*****.FR>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 14:22:27 +0200
> So a mage Casts a spell with deadly drain and reduces the drain by 1
> level to serious now has +3 to all target numbers from the drain and +4
> because he/she's maintaining a spell with dealdy drain for a total of +7
> to all target numbers?

Yep. That's it. Kinda harsh isn't it...
In my game, I introduced an adrenaline pool ([S+C+W]/3) which gives
the possibility for players to negate some wound modifiers. In the
case you give, the mage would spend 3 points of adrenaline to negate
the modifiers from the wound and would only get a +4 to target
numbers. When tension will drow, he will get fully blown by pain and
will have the +7 to target numbers.


    -
Cobra.                   =
                      
###
     'When all is wrong, it will get worse.'    
   ##=
######
                         =
                        
#=
####
           ####  #### 
##     #####   =
####      ########
          ###   ##  ##
####   ##  ## ##  #=
#      ########
######### ###   ##  ## ##  ## #####  ###### #### #######
#########  ####  ####  #####  ##  ## ##  ## ##########
Message no. 51
From: Craig J Wilhelm Jr <craigjwjr@*********.NET>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:26:24 -0400
From: Cobra <wgallas@*****.FR>
To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Date: Friday, June 12, 1998 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells


>In my game, I introduced an adrenaline pool ([S+C+W]/3) which gives
>the possibility for players to negate some wound modifiers.

That's kind of a neat idea, but I don't know about your formula.
Strength and Willpower I can see. But Charisma? Body, yes. One thing though,
I don't think it should refresh at the begining of every action like the
other pools. Maybe once per turn, and can only be used on penalties accrued
that turn.

Thoughts?

Craig "Knee Deep in the Blood of Swine" Wilhelm
Inside every living being, there's a dead one waiting to come out.
UIN: 1864690
-------------BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
v3.12
GAT/$ d- s+:+ a- C+++ U--- P+ L- E-- W++ N++
o K- w+ O> !M-- !V PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t--- 5+++
X-- R++ tv b++ DI-- D+(Q2++) G++ e++ h* r y++**
--------------END GEEK CODE BLOCK--------------
Message no. 52
From: Nexx Many-Scars <Nexx3@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 13:34:47 EDT
In a message dated 98-06-12 08:15:36 EDT, you write:

> Another possibility (that I won't use) is to allow a skill for
> sustaining spells. For each point in this skill, he can reduce the
> target number modifier by one.

There is something similar already, Cobra... its called "Centering".

Nexx, who centers for most skills by cursing in Trollish
Message no. 53
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 13:23:48 +0100
Cobra said on 14:22/12 Jun 98,...

> Another possibility (that I won't use) is to allow a skill for
> sustaining spells. For each point in this skill, he can reduce the
> target number modifier by one.

How about using centering for this? Roll a Centering test, and
every 2 (or 3, or whatever) successes reduce the TN modifier by
1, though not below +0. This applies only to the spell for which
you centered, so if you want it for more than one spell you'll have
to center for each of them separately.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Mobiel telefoneren is een vorm van incontinentie.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> 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. 54
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 12:06:07 EDT
In a message dated 6/11/98 8:24:17 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

<snipped possible spell sustaining modifier concept>

> this is an interesting idea but it puts the mage in double jeopardy ...
> another idea is to say that above is not cumalative with the wound (Ie
> sustaining a deadly drain spell with a serious wound is +4 to all target
> numbers not +7 ...)

I don't know ... as it stands now, the wound modifiers and the sustaining
modifier currently add up, and it does make -some- sense to me. I have been
in a similar situation, where I was hurt and maintaining my concentration on
keeping my hand in a given place were very necessary (I was holding onto a
friend while we were climbing and I had pulled my shoulder out of 'socket').

IMO, the modifiers -should- be added together.

-K
Message no. 55
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 12:11:07 EDT
In a message dated 6/11/98 8:57:30 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
9604801@********.AC.NZ writes:

<snipped more on alternate spell sustaining ideas>

> Incidentally, I require Drain resistance tests for sustained spells on
> *each* of the mage's 'action' phases until he either drops the spell or
> collapses. To paraphrase Murphy's Laws of Combat: "You are not
> invincible: Marines, magicians and fighter pilots take note."
> Magicians are NOT invincible - especially in my game.

OUCH!!!!

Hey Dan, how about this for a concept. There is a "Sustaining Test" that does
exist within the game mechanics as they currently stand. It happens whenever
an event change occurs. The magician makes a Willpower roll with a target
number equal to a 3/4 plus the sustaining modifier (+2), plus distraction
modifiers (wounds, AoE blast waves, sudden loud noises, etc...). It's
considered an Optional Rule IIRC, but it is there.

AND it works wonders. AND it doesn't kill of the magicians too early either.
We've played around with a tweak to this rule. For every turn beyond the
caster's Willpower, the target goes up by a +1 cumulative. So if a magician
were to have a willpower of a 5, for the first 5 full turns, there are no
additional (time related) modifiers. At turn 6, the target goes up 1 point,
at turn 7, another point (+2 total now), turn 8, a third point (+3 total
now)...etcetera....

-K
Message no. 56
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 14:22:21 -0500
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998 12:06:07 EDT K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
writes:
>In a message dated 6/11/98 8:24:17 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
>dghost@****.COM writes:
><snipped possible spell sustaining modifier concept>
>> this is an interesting idea but it puts the mage in double jeopardy
...
>> another idea is to say that above is not cumalative with the wound
(Ie
>> sustaining a deadly drain spell with a serious wound is +4 to all
target
>> numbers not +7 ...)

>I don't know ... as it stands now, the wound modifiers and the
sustaining
>modifier currently add up, and it does make -some- sense to me. I have
been
>in a similar situation, where I was hurt and maintaining my
concentration on
>keeping my hand in a given place were very necessary (I was holding onto
a
>friend while we were climbing and I had pulled my shoulder out of
'socket').
>
>IMO, the modifiers -should- be added together.
>
>-K

I meant the wound caused by the drain .... of course it should be
cumulative with other wounds but making the Drain target number based on
the Drain Level -AND- cumulative with the drain inflicted really screws
over magic ...

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
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
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 57
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 02:56:54 EDT
In a message dated 6/13/98 2:37:11 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

> I meant the wound caused by the drain .... of course it should be
> cumulative with other wounds but making the Drain target number based on
> the Drain Level -AND- cumulative with the drain inflicted really screws
> over magic ...
>
Ah, I understand what you are saying...

"X" the mage throws a flamewall spell and takes "Moderate" drain from
the
attempt, and while sustaining it he suffers an additional +2 modifier (as the
rules stand).

That -IS- what happens now, I don't what the big difference would be.

All IMO of course :P

-K
Message no. 58
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 02:40:20 -0500
On Sun, 14 Jun 1998 02:56:54 EDT K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
writes:
>In a message dated 6/13/98 2:37:11 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
>dghost@****.COM writes:
>> I meant the wound caused by the drain .... of course it should be
>> cumulative with other wounds but making the Drain target number based
on
>> the Drain Level -AND- cumulative with the drain inflicted really
screws
>> over magic ...

>Ah, I understand what you are saying...
>
>"X" the mage throws a flamewall spell and takes "Moderate" drain
from
the
>attempt, and while sustaining it he suffers an additional +2 modifier
(as the
>rules stand).
>
>That -IS- what happens now, I don't what the big difference would be.

And what happens with Serious Drain? The rules proposed would beef T# mod
for sustaining the spell to +3 and that +1 makes a huge amount of
difference ...

>All IMO of course :P
>
>-K

Of course. :P same here :P

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
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
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 59
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 13:36:44 EDT
In a message dated 6/14/98 2:56:07 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

> >"X" the mage throws a flamewall spell and takes "Moderate"
drain from
> the
> >attempt, and while sustaining it he suffers an additional +2 modifier
> (as the
> >rules stand).
> >
> >That -IS- what happens now, I don't what the big difference would be.
>
> And what happens with Serious Drain? The rules proposed would beef T# mod
> for sustaining the spell to +3 and that +1 makes a huge amount of
> difference ...

Yeah, but that actually was the -generalized- idea with the change. The more
drastic/draining the magic, the more concentration would be required to
sustain it on the part of the user.

> >All IMO of course :P
> >-K
> Of course. :P same here :P
> D.Ghost

OH YEAH!!! Well TAKE THIS!!!

========
=========
O == ===
== ~8~ ===
== ===
O =========
========
==
==
==


-K (who thinks this is gonna be fun...giving some "Tongue" from RuPixel....
(smirk)
Message no. 60
From: Cobra <wgallas@*****.FR>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 02:43:38 +0200
> >In my game, I introduced an adrenaline pool ([S+C+W]/3) which gives
> >the possibility for players to negate some wound modifiers.
>
> That's kind of a neat idea, but I don't know about your formula.
> Strength and Willpower I can see. But Charisma? Body, yes. One thing tho=
ugh,
> I don't think it should refresh at the begining of every action like the
> other pools. Maybe once per turn, and can only be used on penalties accr=
ued
> that turn.
>
> Thoughts?

The attributes come from the set of attributes I use in my game,
which are :

Agility Manipulation Intelligence
Strength Charisma Willpower

The adrenaline pool is the average of the 'power' attributes
(strength, charisma and willpower).

In a typical SR system, I would use the average of the 'power'
attributes, which are Strength and Charisma.
This gives some game system use of charisma, even for fighters.

The pool is refreshed at the beginning of each day (after some
sleep). However, you could state that it refreshes at the beginning
of each scene if you want more heroic characters.


    -
Cobra.                   =
                      
###
     'When all is wrong, it will get worse.'    
   ##=
######
                         =
                        
#=
####
           ####  #### 
##     #####   =
####      ########
          ###   ##  ##
####   ##  ## ##  #=
#      ########
######### ###   ##  ## ##  ## #####  ###### #### #######
#########  ####  ####  #####  ##  ## ##  ## ##########
Message no. 61
From: Cobra <wgallas@*****.FR>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 02:43:38 +0200
> > Another possibility (that I won't use) is to allow a skill for
> > sustaining spells. For each point in this skill, he can reduce the
> > target number modifier by one.
>
> How about using centering for this? Roll a Centering test, and
> every 2 (or 3, or whatever) successes reduce the TN modifier by
> 1, though not below +0. This applies only to the spell for which
> you centered, so if you want it for more than one spell you'll have
> to center for each of them separately.

In that way, I would apply the sum of all the TN modifiers from
sustaining when doing the centering tests.
Which means :
A mage is sustaining 2 spells (+4 TN in SR system). He will use the
+4TN for both centering tests instead of using +4 for the first and
+2 +newTN for the second.



    -
Cobra.                   =
                      
###
     'When all is wrong, it will get worse.'    
   ##=
######
                         =
                        
#=
####
           ####  #### 
##     #####   =
####      ########
          ###   ##  ##
####   ##  ## ##  #=
#      ########
######### ###   ##  ## ##  ## #####  ###### #### #######
#########  ####  ####  #####  ##  ## ##  ## ##########
Message no. 62
From: Cobra <wgallas@*****.FR>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 02:43:38 +0200
> > Another possibility (that I won't use) is to allow a skill for
> > sustaining spells. For each point in this skill, he can reduce the
> > target number modifier by one.
>
> There is something similar already, Cobra... its called "Centering".

This proposition was for non initiates and it was supposed to be the
same skill for every mage (call it sustaining).


    -
Cobra.                   =
                      
###
     'When all is wrong, it will get worse.'    
   ##=
######
                         =
                        
#=
####
           ####  #### 
##     #####   =
####      ########
          ###   ##  ##
####   ##  ## ##  #=
#      ########
######### ###   ##  ## ##  ## #####  ###### #### #######
#########  ####  ####  #####  ##  ## ##  ## ##########
Message no. 63
From: Danyel N Woods <9604801@********.AC.NZ>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 20:38:41 +1200
Quoth K is the Symbol (0411 14-06-98 NZT):

><snipped more on alternate spell sustaining ideas>
>
>> Incidentally, I require Drain resistance tests for sustained spells
on
>> *each* of the mage's 'action' phases until he either drops the spell
or
>> collapses. To paraphrase Murphy's Laws of Combat: "You are not
>> invincible: Marines, magicians and fighter pilots take note."
>> Magicians are NOT invincible - especially in my game.
>
>OUCH!!!!
>
>Hey Dan, how about this for a concept. There is a "Sustaining Test"
that does
>exist within the game mechanics as they currently stand. It happens
whenever
>an event change occurs. The magician makes a Willpower roll with a
target
>number equal to a 3/4 plus the sustaining modifier (+2), plus
distraction
>modifiers (wounds, AoE blast waves, sudden loud noises, etc...). It's
>considered an Optional Rule IIRC, but it is there.
>
>AND it works wonders. AND it doesn't kill of the magicians too early
either.
>We've played around with a tweak to this rule. For every turn beyond
the
>caster's Willpower, the target goes up by a +1 cumulative. So if a
magician
>were to have a willpower of a 5, for the first 5 full turns, there are
no
>additional (time related) modifiers. At turn 6, the target goes up 1
point,
>at turn 7, another point (+2 total now), turn 8, a third point (+3
total
>now)...etcetera....

*Oh, goddammit!* That makes my post a real Delta Sierra, don't it?

<Refuses cigarette and blindfold, calmly faces thwapping squad...>

Well, the rule hadn't actually gone into play yet - no PC magicians
(Hell, barely any PCs...) and I'd kinda made it up on the spot...That's
what I get for thinking out loud without full consideration...
(Aside to Alberto Alves: I don't have anything against mages per se, I'm
just trying to 'tone down' the magic in the campaign, so my players (and
I!) don't get overwhelmed. Reasons: A] I was trying to represent the
rarity of magic, and some of its many drawbacks ('it's not a panacea,
boy'); and B] I don't have all the magic rules memorised yet, and I
don't want to get bitten with loopholes and things I missed - like I
just did with the 'event change' system K just mentioned. Of course,
the 'magic is rare' reason may not hold up too well when I'm finished
hitting them with bug spirits and a Dark (Toxic) Jedi shaman...<EGMG>.)

Back to K's point: that sounds like a good system to me. I'll have to
look it up when I get back to my copy of the BBB (though I might just
make it (Willpower) turns after the initial casting, if it isn't
already.)
<image of team sorcery adept holding her mana barrier until the hostile
magician drops in hail of gunfire, smiling, then collapsing out
cold...great drama>

Danyel Woods - 9604801@********.ac.nz
Open mouth, insert *other* foot...
Message no. 64
From: Robert Nesius <nesius@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 00:07:41 -0700
Hi all,
Looks like this thread has died out but I felt compelled to add two
cents here. Maybe even three. ;)

Anyway, the idea of reducing modifiers for sustained spells has the
"Robot" in my mind waving his hands frantically and exclaiming "DANGER
GM! DANGER!"

My experience in past games has been that magicians can easily dominate
the game if one is not careful. The +2 modifier for sustained spells
rule has always seemed to be one of the rules that helps keep a ceiling
on things by forcing mages to use mechanisms with drawbacks to solve
the problem. ie: Quickenings - cost karma, etc... locks can be
ground through and destroyed easily and cost karma. Elementals
can sustain, but there goes a service, which cost time and money
to obtain, and services are usually in a finite supply. Allowing
mages to sustain spells without modifiers by virtue of spell design
and slightly higher drain really escalates the threat and power of
a mage, because a kick butt magic pool can offset those factors. Yes,
it takes Karma to raise the magic pool appropriately to statistically
offset those higher drain codes, and yes the mage paid 2 extra Karma
during while learning the spell to get that benefit. But when throwing
Karma at the problem results in a risk-free solution, that poses
a serious risk for munchkin-esque powergaming.

On the other hand, in a powergaming scenario of that magnitude, what does
anyone care about numbers anyway? A good GM in that scenario should do
what K used to do - make the players actually roll the 600 dice
they got from their ritual and when asked what the target number
is, respond with "impress me."

Anyway...

In summary, from a game design point of view, this seems to skew the
balance of things a bit much. I realize that semantically within
the context of descriptions attached to various mechanics, the
original idea may make sense, or seem applicable, and that FASA
book rules sometimes need fixing. But I don't think this is one
of the areas that needs it.

Maybe if there was a chance of the spell going free if the mage gets
knocked out..... ;)

Cheers,
-Rob
Message no. 65
From: Nexx Many-Scars <Nexx3@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 03:10:27 EDT
In a message dated 16/06/98 02:03:13 Central Daylight Time, nesius@******.COM
writes:

> Elementals
> can sustain, but there goes a service, which cost time and money
> to obtain, and services are usually in a finite supply.

Here's a thought: can allies sustain a spell for a mage?

Nexx
Message no. 66
From: Danyel N Woods <9604801@********.AC.NZ>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 19:18:50 +1200
Quoth K is the Symbol (0411 14-06-98 NZT):

<<SLICE>>
> There is a "Sustaining Test" that does
> exist within the game mechanics as they currently stand. It happens
whenever
> an event change occurs. The magician makes a Willpower roll with a
target
> number equal to a 3/4 plus the sustaining modifier (+2), plus
distraction
> modifiers (wounds, AoE blast waves, sudden loud noises, etc...). It's
> considered an Optional Rule IIRC, but it is there.
>
> AND it works wonders. AND it doesn't kill of the magicians too early
either.
> We've played around with a tweak to this rule. For every turn beyond
the
> caster's Willpower, the target goes up by a +1 cumulative. So if a
magician
> were to have a willpower of a 5, for the first 5 full turns, there are
no
> additional (time related) modifiers. At turn 6, the target goes up 1
point,
> at turn 7, another point (+2 total now), turn 8, a third point (+3
total
> now)...etcetera....

Is this a house rule, K? 'Cause after my post of last night under this
header, I tore through the BBB, Grim-II AND my borrowed Awakenings, and
couldn't find hide nor hair of it...
(Which doesn't mean I won't use it, of course, it's just that I'm
puzzled as to what an 'event change' is...)

Danyel Woods - 9604801@********.ac.nz
'God hates me, that's what it is.'
'Hate him back. It works for me.'
Message no. 67
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 10:29:24 EDT
In a message dated 6/16/98 2:03:11 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
nesius@******.COM writes:

> On the other hand, in a powergaming scenario of that magnitude, what does
> anyone care about numbers anyway? A good GM in that scenario should do
> what K used to do - make the players actually roll the 600 dice
> they got from their ritual and when asked what the target number
> is, respond with "impress me."
>
OMG! Robert, I am impressed you even remember that night. IF that is the
night I am thinking of (three ritual teams, one with each part of a complex
problem???).

-K
Message no. 68
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 10:31:46 EDT
In a message dated 6/16/98 2:23:04 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
9604801@********.AC.NZ writes:

> > We've played around with a tweak to this rule. For every turn beyond
> the
>
> Is this a house rule, K? 'Cause after my post of last night under this
> header, I tore through the BBB, Grim-II AND my borrowed Awakenings, and
> couldn't find hide nor hair of it...
> (Which doesn't mean I won't use it, of course, it's just that I'm
> puzzled as to what an 'event change' is...)

Please note that I snipped some areas, but the sentence at the beginning of
"my quote" should say it all .. "We've..." :)

So yeah, it's a House rule, and one we only really play with when various
situations call for it (like sustaining a barrier spell to keep the bad guys
out while the decker and rigger frantically work on rewiring something...)

-K
Message no. 69
From: Cobra <wgallas@*****.FR>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 20:04:03 +0200
> > Elementals
> > can sustain, but there goes a service, which cost time and money
> > to obtain, and services are usually in a finite supply.
>
> Here's a thought: can allies sustain a spell for a mage?

It isn't stated in their capacities but it makes sense IMO. I would
like the allies share the thought of their creator.


    -
Cobra.                   =
                      
###
     'When all is wrong, it will get worse.'    
   ##=
######
                         =
                        
#=
####
           ####  #### 
##     #####   =
####      ########
          ###   ##  ##
####   ##  ## ##  #=
#      ########
######### ###   ##  ## ##  ## #####  ###### #### #######
#########  ####  ####  #####  ##  ## ##  ## ##########
Message no. 70
From: Cobra <wgallas@*****.FR>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 20:04:03 +0200
> Hi all,
> Looks like this thread has died out but I felt compelled to add two
> cents here. Maybe even three. ;)
>
> Anyway, the idea of reducing modifiers for sustained spells has the
> "Robot" in my mind waving his hands frantically and exclaiming "DANGER
> GM! DANGER!"
>
> [skip text]
>
> In summary, from a game design point of view, this seems to skew the
> balance of things a bit much. I realize that semantically within
> the context of descriptions attached to various mechanics, the
> original idea may make sense, or seem applicable, and that FASA
> book rules sometimes need fixing. But I don't think this is one
> of the areas that needs it.
>
> Maybe if there was a chance of the spell going free if the mage gets
> knocked out..... ;)

All the arguments and ideas I gave were based on the fact that you
used a much higher TN modifier for sustaining spells (+1 to +4
instead of +2). The fact that you could reduce the modifier doesn't
mean that it's permanent. If you're knocked down, the spell is gone.


    -
Cobra.                   =
                      
###
     'When all is wrong, it will get worse.'    
   ##=
######
                         =
                        
#=
####
           ####  #### 
##     #####   =
####      ########
          ###   ##  ##
####   ##  ## ##  #=
#      ########
######### ###   ##  ## ##  ## #####  ###### #### #######
#########  ####  ####  #####  ##  ## ##  ## ##########
Message no. 71
From: Robert Nesius <nesius@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 01:56:38 -0700
Cobra rearranged the electrons to spell out:
>Robert Nesius wrote:
>>
>> In summary, from a game design point of view, this seems to skew the
>> balance of things a bit much. I realize that semantically within
>> the context of descriptions attached to various mechanics, the
>> original idea may make sense, or seem applicable, and that FASA
>> book rules sometimes need fixing. But I don't think this is one
>> of the areas that needs it.
>>
>> Maybe if there was a chance of the spell going free if the mage gets
>> knocked out..... ;)
>
>All the arguments and ideas I gave were based on the fact that you
>used a much higher TN modifier for sustaining spells (+1 to +4
>instead of +2). The fact that you could reduce the modifier doesn't
>mean that it's permanent. If you're knocked down, the spell is gone.
>

I was referring to what I thought was the original proposal, which was
buying a spell at a higher force, casting it at (force -2), and resisting
drain based on force, and having no modifiers for sustaining.

-Rob
Message no. 72
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 13:34:41 -0500
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 14:44:55 -0400 Tim Kerby <drekhead@***.NET> writes:
>On 10 Jun 98, at 13:54, Sommers wrote:
<SNIP>
>This reminds me of something I always wanted clarified: does adding
>the exclusive and fetish restrictions to a spell give you more dice
>to throw, or is the spell just treated as if it were always 2 Higher
>in Force?
>
>Along the same lines; focuses add dice, correct?
>
>--
>
>=================================================================
> - Tim Kerby -
<SNIP Sig>

I'm sorry if this has been answered and I just deleted the message but,
AFAIK, Exclusive & Fetish options increase the effective force (but drain
/ learning costs are still for the lower Force level) while foci (and
totem dice) act like automatic magic pool (more dice to throw at things).

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
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
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 73
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 13:26:36 -0500
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 20:14:26 +0200 Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
writes:
>About the discussion on sustaining spells, TN modifiers etcetera.
>I have a few things to mention...
>
>There's allready a way to reduce sustaining TN's for skilled mages
>(the 'pros') called 'centering vs. penalties' which adequately
represents
>how skilled mages can ignore the distraction of sustaining, injuries
etc.

This only affects casting spells not using a skill ... For example, you
can't cast shapechange then center versus penalties to remove the +2 T#
mod for a stealth test from sustaining the shapechange spell.

<SNIP>
>So-called counterproductive spells are, in their default configuration,
not
>limited to the mage, and as such makes sense. Personal versions are a
limited
>form of that spell, and you get a bonus for that limitation for a
reason.
>IF you need to sustain spells on yourself but aren't willing or able to
use
>foci or quickening, elementals can be used to sustain spells as well.

Foci cost karma to bond and leave you an astral target;
Quickenings cost heaps of karma and can only be performed by Intiates;
Elementals can't be summoned by everyone who can cast spells ...

>(Oh, you're a shaman? Tough for you, but you have spirits with spell -
like
>abilities that can do that a lot longer and cheaper, so I wouldn't be
loosing
>any sleep over that if I were you.).

You forgot about Sorcery adepts :P

>All means of sustaining spells are expensive - either in penalties
(normal
>sustaining) cost (elementals, spell locks) or karma (centering,
quickening).

centering is not a method for sustaining spells, did you mean anchoring?

>I would be very careful about reducing one of these costs. They are
currently
>balanced - I've seen how even the 'focused concentration' edge
drastically
>changes spell use, for instance. Casting a spell at +2 force.. it
doesn't seem
>like enough, as long as many of the sustained spells are fairly cheap,
drain
>wise. Add an exclusive restriction and I think that would help - if not
you'll
>get 'sleep' casting invisible mages coming out of the walls...
>
>Fade
<SNIP>

Actually, hmmmm.... IMO, the design option is not that bad ... It makes
the spell a little more expensive (+2 karma) and helps out the mage a bit
(the mage still has to resist drain ...)

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
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
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 74
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 13:16:49 -0500
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 13:54:22 -0400 Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
writes:
>At 01:34 PM 6/10/98 -0400, you wrote:
<SNIP>
>> >If you want magicians in combat, let them have either Quickenings or
Spell
>> >Locks so they can have spells like Armor, Combat Sense and Increased
>> >Initiative.

I was designing this as a way for temporary spells (like shapeshift) to
maintained (ie, not permanently "on") without spell locks/quickenings
(both of which cost karma)

>>Eh, that's a permanent thing. I think that the Simple spell concept
>>is a neat reflection of the Exclusive spell...

>Why not just make it a variation on Exclusive spells. I think I saw this
in
>an article on shapeshifting in SR in some game mag. Anyway, the deal was
>that you had an exclusive spell modifier when you learned it. But
instead
>of getting the +2 Force, you didn't have the Sustaining penalty. Other
than
>that, its like an exclusive spell.
>
>So if the mage wants to go around sustaining that Comabat Sense spell
>without a TN penalty, fine. But he can cast NO other spells, summon NO
>spirits, (no Astral Perception?)etc. Seems a hefty trade-off, so that
>you're not going to walk around doing it all the time. But in certain
>circumstances, well worth it.
>
>Sommers

Hmmm .... Actually, you know what? Take my proposed spell design thing
(-2 Force & no T#s for sustaining the spell) then add the exclusive
option (+2 Force and cannot use another magical skill) and voila! you
have just that exclusive spell with no difiers to force and no T# mod for
sustaining it ... Interesting, neh?

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
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
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 75
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 21:07:42 +0000
Just to add another mention of how to sustain spells without
penalties... cast as a ritual spell, a spell can have a duration of
Magic*dice hours. Cast as a 1-man ritual team before a job, it
should suffice for most spells.

(See "sustaining ritual sorcery", P. 136).

--
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
Message no. 76
From: Nexx Many-Scars <Nexx3@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 16:31:21 EDT
In a message dated 98-06-22 16:05:59 EDT, you write:

<< This only affects casting spells not using a skill ... For example, you
can't cast shapechange then center versus penalties to remove the +2 T#
mod for a stealth test from sustaining the shapechange spell. >>

I know this isn't canon, but why not? It seems to me that magicians are
learning a method of concentrating past pain and distraction with centering...
why wouldn't it work with other kinds of skills (admittedly, your singing
centering skill won't help you much if you're trying to make a stealth test
but...)

Nexx
Message no. 77
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 04:27:42 -0500
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998 19:35:46 EDT K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
writes:
>In a message dated 6/9/98 12:43:46 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
>dghost@****.COM writes:
>> Maybe now I can actully use that mageblade spell :) (the drain plus
the
>> T# penalty for sustaining made it impractical ... I did change the
Mana
>> version to stun damage to help with the drain and cuz it was a nice
thing
>> to do :)

>Wow, this spell must have gone around the world at -LEAST- 300 times
that I
>have heard of.
>
>You should see the -really- neat versions of Mageblade the guys here
have come
>up with (they -like- having the creator of that one here). Mageblade
>(Elementality), by simply using the sustained elemental modifiers
additions.
>"Stunblade" is really popular, and it helps to take prisoners for
>interrogations. Of course, the "Mageblades" variation hasn't been seen
in a
>while, and I'm not certain any of the group members would survive
(Binder
>would likely run the other direction, as he's seen it before).
>
>-K

BTW, why does the physical version of mageblade vary damage according to
form? Or am I thinking of someone elses mageblade knockoff? ;) ... If
not, may I suggest a adding a damage mods to the drain target number for
both mana & physical versions? (either make this a spell design thing or
a moment of casting thing ...) BTW, a friend of mine took the physical
version of this spell because he wanted a Lightsaber ... me? I'm more
subtle ... I took a stun version of the mana spell :) means less drain
and fewer APBs to boot :)

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
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
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 78
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Unobtrusive Spells
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 10:11:25 EDT
In a message dated 6/29/98 6:19:31 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

> BTW, why does the physical version of mageblade vary damage according to
> form? Or am I thinking of someone elses mageblade knockoff? ;) ... If
> not, may I suggest a adding a damage mods to the drain target number for
> both mana & physical versions? (either make this a spell design thing or
> a moment of casting thing ...) BTW, a friend of mine took the physical
> version of this spell because he wanted a Lightsaber ... me? I'm more
> subtle ... I took a stun version of the mana spell :) means less drain
> and fewer APBs to boot :)
>
Let me think a second...IIRC, the reason for the form variation is whether or
not the blade is "anchored" or not. If the blade is being actively sustained
and not "wielded" in someone's hand(s) directly, then the Power of the attack
is based upon the Force of the spell, as that (or optionally the Willpower) is
the driving force of the magic. IF the blade is being wielded directly by an
individual, then it becomes the Strength of the person, because at that point,
the blade is more like a "barrier rating" of material (sort of, not quite
accurate, but sort of) and thus a "sword" by any other description.

And the variations of how the spell is Anchored/Locked/Quickened can mean a
world of difference as well.

Basically, does it dance or do you???

-K

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Unobtrusive 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!