| From: | Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Vince questions VII |
| Date: | Sat, 8 Apr 1995 00:59:07 +1000 |
> I honestly don't think a barrier could recognized a bullet or even a blade.
> The definition and should be reworked to say something like this..
You're probably right, but then again, we never can tell (perhaps all
bullets have a similar aura or some such thing...)
> Bullet barrier, the barrier stops fast moving light projectiles.. and
> Blade barrier, it stops relativly slow moving, heavy objects, including
> blades, blunt weapons and arrows.
Blade Barrier then stops fists too, by that definition. And Bullet Barrier
wouldn't stop A-Cannon rounds (which would have to be as heavy as high-tech
crossbow bolts). But I do see what you mean, the current rules have spells
detecting very specific things, which may not be terribly logical. But is
the detection of speed any more logical? Why should a spell be any better at
detecting the veolcity of a projectile, then detecting the type of
projecticle? I can see that it's not as good as it could be the way it is,
but I don't think velocity or energy is especially preferrable to "bullet"
or "blade". Velocity or mass requires definite cut-offs, which can have
exceptions, while "bullet" or "blade", even given they mightn't be
entirely
believable, are a least clear definitions (and can be reasoned using auras
if really required).
--
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+
