Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: Mark Steedman <RSMS@******.EEE.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: focus question
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 16:40:41 GMT
> From: Kelly Martin <kelly@*******.BLOOMINGTON.IN.US>

> Mark> officailly and i think its the main book not grimoire you should
> Mark> be looking in, a magician can turn off any focus he/she has
> Mark> bonded at any time as a 'simple' action. The focus need not be
> Mark> in LOS on even on their person, and this applies to ALL foci.
>
> no, according to SRII a focus can only be active if it is on the
> magician's person. if the focus is dropped or stolen, it deactivates.
> likewise, a magician must have the focus on his person in order to
> activate it.
>
i think i made a comment on that it was rather pointless turning on
most foci if they are not touching you - exactly because of this
rule!

> what you describe more closely matches the rules for activating _spell
> locks_, which follow different rules than for other foci. weapon foci
> are not spell locks. :)
>
i was trying to save typing time and assuming folks new they were a
special case as i allowed for spell locks on other people.

> Mark> Weapon foci however are a real pain played this way as foci
> Mark> atuomatically deactivate if taken from where they were placed,
> Mark> which means by the book you can quickdraw (free action) your
> Mark> waepon focus but it then takes a simple to turn (no point
> Mark> turning it on till you are) on meaning you spend a whole action
> Mark> just drawing weapon.
>
> you're misreading the rules, i think. a weapon focus would not be
> automatically activated nor deactivated by the act of drawing it.
> spell locks are the only foci which are deactivated by moving them.
>
no i have not, you've misunderstood me, i indicated that 1 thing is
the offical rules and that i don't particularly like them so this is
i the solution i have used and seen others use.
note first sentance above.

> Mark> Most GM's (as far as i know) therefore rule
> Mark> weapon foci as on 'while held' and off while not, ie making the
> Mark> activation part of 'i grab my ....' though you can specifically
> Mark> turn them off while holding them (eg want sword out to worry
> Mark> mundanes but don't want astral link', after all the ganger just
> Mark> sees 'katana' and has no idea if its a focus or not.
>
> i don't like this, myself. activating a focus requires some mental
> concentration, and providing that as a Free Action seems to me to be
> both unrealistic and inappropriate.
>
fine you are allowed to disagree, i simply said what i like, as hand-
hand is a complex i think the poor sword users have enough problems
having to run up to the target as it is, realistic it might be but SR
combat is dangerous, you cannot afford to force peole to spend whole
actions just getting ready for combat.

> you can only quickdraw pistols, and enchanting pistols is
> pointless,
> so i think you've got a misunderstanding there too. for _all_ melee
> weapons, you can't both ready the weapon and then attack with it in
> the same phase, because readying a weapon is a Simple Action, and
> melee is a Complex Action. so you use one Simple Action to draw, and
> the other (which you'd otherwise not use) to activate the lock.
>
far too long since i actually read some of these rules :(, you might
be right though readying any weapon is a simple action, you can
instead quickdraw, easy it may seem but if you have penalties,
(running wounds etc) it soon reaches target 6 and easy to fail.


> k.
> --
> kelly martin
>

I think we have a case of too different opinions and crossed wires
here, that might explain why you seem to be busy telling me things i
know.
I could be wrong on quickdraw but usually prefere to play the game
rather than read rulebooks, and memory is never perfect. I do check
up on rules eventually if a problem comes up but don't have time to
regularly refresh my memory on everything (common problem ? hey :) )

Mark

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.