Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Philip Hayward <Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Subject: V's Questions
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 10:18:21 +6000
Damion writes:
>> SRII.156 Improved invisibility
>>
>> Can this spell be cast on physical oblect and vehicles ?
>
> It says in the description that "...the invisible person or thing...", so
> yes, you can cast it on inanimate objects.

I agree and thats what we rule yet is there a limit on the size of the
object? An object could be a hand gun, a table, a car or a boeing 747 ?
My only suggestion is to reduce the perception test to see it the larger
the object gets? so you need a LOT of successes to hide the 747 :)

>> SRII.158 Barrier
>>
>> Can this spell move after been cast ?
>
> It doesn't actually say, but I'd would (and do) rule that once cast, that's
> where it is. Like a wall, you can't move it.

Yet the personal form moves with you doesn't it?

>> Yes (cast on a moving target maybe ? If so does it have the
>> strenght to push things or peoples. Can it protect
>> someone from a fall ?)
>
> You don't cast a Barrier spell on a target. You cast it at a location. If
> someone is at that particular location at the time you try to cast it, well
> then... (We discussed that point a while ago, and more or less decided that
> the barier had a temporary "gap" where they were, which closed after they
> moved out of it.)

But a movable barrier spell with a higher drain would be possible,
and give a restricted target (say on vehicles) to compensate.
And my PC's thought Nissan patrol cars were wimpy :)

I'm tempted to pick two variations (with different spell formulas)
the place in a location (can be shaped in a wall etc.) and another
which can be placed on a target?


>> Is the micro-transceiver used for communication
>> (sending what it is hearing) ?
>
> Based on the relative concealabilities of the micro-camcorder (8),
micro-recorder (9) and micro-transceiver (18), I'd have to say that the
micro-transceiver is bloody small. Hence it couldn't contain many
electronics/speakers/etc at all, so I'd say it is only a homing device (ie,
sends out a
continuous, or intermittent signal to show its curent location,
which can be picked up by a detector of some kind). OTOH, since it is in the
communications section, and there is already a thing called "Tracking
Signal" in the surveilance section, then perhaps what it is is a detect only
radio or similar device, in that it can only receive information, and not
> send it.

I thought the transciever just sent the images recorded by the micro-
camcorder, or the micro-recorder. On their own the camcorder/Recorder
do just that record. This is how we play it, and you usually add the
transciever or additional memory for the recording devices depending on
how you intend to collect the info. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

> --------------------
> Menard Steve writes:

>> To this one I have a question to ask : Is the personal version of these
>> spells(all the barriers varianst) mobile? Or do you have to stay in place?
>> I'd say they follow you, else you're gonna be encased in your own spell!

> An excerpt from my file of questions:
>
> Personal Barrier Spells
>
> Where does the barrier actually exists? Is it:
> (pg 158 SRII, 123 Grimything)
>
> i) The same as a normal barrier spell, only centered on the
> caster?
> ii) The same as a normal barrier spell, only it provides
> protection for the caster only (ie, it can, like a
> regular barrier, be cast anywhere, but, if it were a
> Bullet Barrier spell, then only bullets headed for the
> caster would be stopped)?
> iii) Both (i) & (ii)?
> iv) A "skin-tight" barrier?
>
>The answer eludes me, but I'd rule (i) based on the definition of a personal
>spell as "something which is targeted on yourself"

Now, by (i) do you mean the usual radius? if so then I rule (iv)
but I'd never thought of it as 'skin tight' just small enough to protect
you, (and people cowering behind the guy with personal barrier using him
as walking cover.)

I see now that I'd never thought barrier spells over properly as my
current rulings are all over the place but then since no PC's use it
yet they don't really now anymore than that their bullets keep flattening
at least oppertune times :)

But if a character wanted any variation I'd say
sure and tweak the drain as I felt fit.

Phil
<Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Message no. 2
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: V's Questions
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 19:58:18 +1000
Philip Hayward writes:

> I agree and thats what we rule yet is there a limit on the size of the
> object? An object could be a hand gun, a table, a car or a boeing 747 ?
> My only suggestion is to reduce the perception test to see it the larger
> the object gets? so you need a LOT of successes to hide the 747 :)

Sounds fair enough. I'd never thought about it, because it has never really
come up in my games (my players are yet to discover the wonderful uses of
Invisibility, and I'm not about to tell them by using the tactics on an NPC,
sure it'd be cool, but the spell has too many uses in the hands of PCs. When
they work it out themselves, I'll even the board <evil GM grin>). But
something like a TN mod for casting the spell, or having the perception TN
equal to the No of successes (instead of 2x), or even 1/2 the success for
big things sounds alright to me.

> But a movable barrier spell with a higher drain would be possible,
> and give a restricted target (say on vehicles) to compensate.

Yep, one could design all sorts of barriers (only I'd like to know the
specifics of the current barriers, so I have a base to work from).

> I thought the transciever just sent the images recorded by the micro-
> camcorder, or the micro-recorder. On their own the camcorder/Recorder
> do just that record. This is how we play it, and you usually add the
> transciever or additional memory for the recording devices depending on
> how you intend to collect the info. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, you could be right (in fact it soudns quite good to me). I was only
guessing. I think I'll wait to see what FASA has to say.

> Now, by (i) do you mean the usual radius?

Yes, I did.

--
Damion Milliken Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 3
From: Philip Hayward <Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Subject: V's Questions
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 09:16:10 +6000
Damion writes
>> I agree and thats what we rule yet is there a limit on the size of the
>> object? An object could be a hand gun, a table, a car or a boeing 747 ?
>> My only suggestion is to reduce the perception test to see it the larger
>> the object gets? so you need a LOT of successes to hide the 747 :)
>
> Sounds fair enough. I'd never thought about it, because it has never really
> come up in my games (my players are yet to discover the wonderful uses of
> Invisibility, and I'm not about to tell them by using the tactics on an NPC,
> sure it'd be cool, but the spell has too many uses in the hands of PC's

It can be a versatile spell, not quite as versatile as physical masking
which can hide a grenade (make it look like an empty coke can, then set
it off with magic fingers :) or it could be used to make empty coke cans
look like a grenade :) these are common tactics but the best was against
a mage who had seen me use it before. Hide a grenade in a coke can
disguised as a grenade and when he see through the spell he sees a coke
can and <boom> :) double bluff.

> When they work it out themselves, I'll even the board <evil GM grin>). But
> something like a TN mod for casting the spell, or having the perception TN
> equal to the No of successes (instead of 2x), or even 1/2 the success for
> big things sounds alright to me.

I'll probably increase TN# in which case what should be the largest object
a mage with invisibility 6 could still get 3-4 successes on ie conceal
with a perception test of 6-8 (anything less is risky)?

>> I thought the transciever just sent the images recorded by the micro-
>> camcorder, or the micro-recorder. On their own the camcorder/Recorder
>> do just that record. This is how we play it, and you usually add the
>> transciever or additional memory for the recording devices depending on
>> how you intend to collect the info. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

> Well, you could be right (in fact it soudns quite good to me). I was only
> guessing. I think I'll wait to see what FASA has to say.

Sure, but its good to know what I'm currently using isn't miles off.
Does anyone have any more ideas for surveilance/communication type of
technology/electronics, I'd like to see more here than either new spells
or cyberware.

>> now, by (i) do you mean the usual radius?
> Yes, I did.
okay so it depends on whether you define personal spells on only affecting
your person. or can only be targetted on your self - more like a
restricted target. If it has the usual radius then it could be more
useful if you rule it can move around with you but the normal one can't.

If I take a normal barrier spell but add restricted target, how would
its drain compare to that of a personal barrier?

Phil
<Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Message no. 4
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: V's Questions
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 14:32:29 BST
for all the UK list.members out there:

For extra SR comms/surveillance gear, just watch Bugs on
Saturday nights on BBC1, not only is it hilariously funny,
but you can see proto-runners running around with a lack
of tactical sense, but a lot of the gear us runners are
supposed to use. Laser Mikes, Micro-corders, etc.

And it's not half bad either.


Phil (Runs-With-The-Pack)
Message no. 5
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: V's Questions
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 1995 16:35:16 +0200
>For extra SR comms/surveillance gear, just watch Bugs on
>Saturday nights on BBC1, not only is it hilariously funny,
>but you can see proto-runners running around with a lack
>of tactical sense, but a lot of the gear us runners are
>supposed to use. Laser Mikes, Micro-corders, etc.

I might just watch that... Thanks for the tip!


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
he's not trying to catch your eye; he's just trying to get a life
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about V's Questions, 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.