| From: | L Canthros <lobo1@****.COM> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Noticing Spellcasting |
| Date: | Sun, 27 Apr 1997 17:54:28 EDT |
<gilmeth@*********.COM> writes:
>>>* Spellcasting does require some gestures. The gestures however are
not
>>>easy to notice.
>>
>>Why should they be any more difficult to notice than any other
gestures?
>>I'm betting that any gestrues or other actions needed to cast spells
are
>>probably no more obvious than the silent mouthing of a single word. If
>>that obvious.
>
>Agreed, they shouldn't be obvious. Maybe instead of noticed I should
>have used "realized" You might mistake these simple or common gestures
>for something else. For example go into the word-mouthing thing,
>mouthing "alligator food" looks almost the same as "I Love You." I
sure
>that a mage can hide the gesture required to cast a spell better as it
>required less "intention" on his part to cast the spell, hence the
>book's Force-Magic Rating system of perception test checks.
But what about the shimmering caused by the spell's travel from magician
to target? Much like a high-force spirit, this also appears during
spellcasting.
[...]
>>>* Spellcasters under a Gesture Geas would be required to make their
>>>actions "obvious" therefore, they couldn't hide it (use the higher
T#'s
>>>above) or, were always easily noticed (a.k.a. no perception test).
>>>Again, this depends on the GM.
>>
>>This is already stated, "requires the magician to gestrue visibly and
>>freely to make magic." (p53, GR2). Similarly, the Incantation geas
>>requires the magician to speak loudly. Each does state that "it is
>>assumed that the casting of even simple magic requires some activity on
>>the mage's part." (p53, GR2) This is, so far, the only quote I have
seen
>>which indicates that any actual movement or action is required to cast
>>spells. And I am still more than willing to believe that no _physical_
>>activity is required on the magician's part for the casting of a spell.
>>Officially, however, spellcasting does apparently require the magician
to
>>perform some physical action in tandem with the spellcasting.
>
>Sorry, I don't have the Grimoire, Yet. From the wording of these
>outtakes I wouldn't ever allow a mage that had a gesture geas to hide
>his actions. They are visible. Period. It says so. That is with gesture
>geas. As for every mage I believe the quote I'm saying often in one in
>SR2 stating that "a mage may cast a spell with just a whisper if he
Again, I believe the quote actually said that a shaman could cast a spell
with _barely_ a whisper, should he choose to do so.
>needs/wants to. A whisper may be small, but it is some physical action
>and there fore can be seen and connected with spellcasting. Plus,
>casting a force 1 spell is much easier than casting a force 6 spell so,
>again you can (I would) always go back to the force-Magic Rating system
>of detection. There has to be something there to detect doesn't there?
If you plan on doing much with things like geasa and initiation, the
Grimoire would be a good next buy. It's _the_ SR core magic book.
>>>* All spellcasters require some gestures so, when under the effects of
>>>paralysation(sp?) or when properly restrained. For example, a magician
>>>with handcuffs no would be able to do the required gestures (since
they
>>>are small - unless under Gesture Geas, then they are too big) but,
with
>>>his arms bound behind his back he couldn't.
>>
>>Again, I am still a bit cautious about this. I'd say that, excepting
>>fulfillment of geasa, the actions required by a magician are so small
>>that, even paralyzed, they can perform the needed 'actions'. For
>>instance, a person can voluntarily quicken their heart rate, raising
>>their rate of breath, raising their body temperature (not much, but a
>>little). Such may be all the action needed to cast a spell.
>
>Yes, I understand you view on this, small actions like this can be done
>but, how hard is it to detect these actions? A 12 on the perception
>test? A 24? I don't really think you could detect these. But, there has
>to be something to detect even a mage with 13 Magic (heh.) casting a
>force 1 spell has the chance to be "caught" on a 12. It's a small chance
>(1/36) but, It's still a chance - there is something there to detect.
>Plus, the paralyzation I was speaking of (when I was writing that) was
>more of a magical/AD&D paralyzation, where each sub-atomic particle of
>your existence is suspended in a stasis for the duration of the spell.
>Being a quadriplegic wouldn't completely keep you from casting spells
>but, you couldn't exert yourself enough to cast spells that were
>extremely powerful. (Going bake to Force-Magic Rating, as outlined in
>the book.)
The 'Paralyze' spell in Awakenings actually only freezes the _voluntary_
muscles of the target's body. He can't move his arm, he can't speak, he
can't turn his eyes or head, but, since the heart is an involuntary
muscle (that is capable of voluntary control), it could be possible for a
magician to do what I outlined above.
>>>* Some may say that since you are in a coma (or at least your physical
>>>body is) when in astral space, you couldn't make gestures at all.
>>>However, I would say that your Astral body, A magician's "real
essence",
>>>could make the gestures and therefore cast spells. This would mean
>>>however, that a mage could "go astral" when bound, and still cast
>>>spells. I would allow that, as it does make sense, and to cast spells
>>>over to "real space" they require a bridge anyway.
>>
>>Now, you're getting ridiculous. Assuming some action on the magician's
>>part is needed to bridge the gap between the physical plane and the
>>astral plane, this would not be needed on the astral because you cannot
>>cast spells at purely physical entities when astral projecting. Only
>>beings with an active astral presence are considered valid targets in
>>astral space. Since you don't need to bridge the barrier between the
two
>>planes, no actions are necessary.
>
>Agreed, that was ridiculous, it was supposed to be. That's not how I
>interpret the rules, but I understand how someone could. You just agreed
=
>to all my points it that paragraph.
I guess I goofed up. I thought you were being serious above. My mistake.
--
-Canthros
If any man wishes peace, lobo1@****.com
let him prepare for war. canthros1@***.com
--Roman proverb
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/
