Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Attacking Foci Astrally
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 23:53:13 +1100
Robert Watkins wrote, describing an idea for shielding foci
by containing it in a living container.

A simpler technique would be to pop it in your mouth, or to
have it surgically implanted.

This came up in our game. Although it sounded reasonable at
the time, it would severely upset game balance. This was discussed
last year under the subject `Spell locks made 100% safe.'

Unfortunately, the SR magic system is not internally consistent, IMO.
So trying to come up with completely logical explanations that fit
the rules and explain them, is impossible.

For that reason, I think a wholesome and sensible attitude is to try
to use the rules logically as much as possible; but where the rules
lead you to a loophole, it's reasonable to just give up, and be guided
instead by Game Balance.

Incidentally, the `explanation' we came to for not allowing living
flesh to block astral energies was this: that the presence of the
magic item interacts with the possessor's aura in such a way that
shows the item's own presence. That this `colouring' of the aura
happens when the item is bonded - i.e. when you synchronise the foci
with your own aura.

A simplistic example would be to say that a foci tinged an aura red.
(I'm not suggesting that, BTW - I don't believe it makes logical sense
to see on the astral plane. It's why you can't read, astrally, for
example.)

Anyway, if you can assense the presence of the foci, you can synchronise
auras with it and target it magically.

I don't see any unbalancing aspects to allowing Orichalcum to screen a
focus, however, provided it also makes the item inactive.

luke

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.