From:	"Wendy Wanders, Subject 117" <KGGEWEHR@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] Geasa
Date:	Thu, 24 Jul 1997 17:35:02 -0500

Steve wrote:
<snip>

> So, how about this: instead of the present system, allow magical characters
> who lose a Magic attribute point to take a Geas *to get the Magic point
> back.* As long as the character follows the geas, their Magic rating remains
> what it was. If they break the geas, the lose the use of that point of Magic
> until the geas is obeyed again. Each Magic point lost would require a
> seperate geas (unlike the present system where a geas is required for every 2
> points lost).
Frankly, I love this idea. Rather than 'not being able to become an Initiate',
the char gains something useful (in a direct way, that is) back from the geas.

> One advantage to this system is it would allow Magic loss to work more the
> same for magicians and physical adepts. A physad could likewise take a geas
> on a lost Magic point, applying the geas to 1 point-worth of their powers.
> This works like a normal physad geas (from Awakenings) except, instead of a
> cost-break, the adept gets to keep the Magic point and the powers as long as
> the geas is unbroken.

> An initiate who takes a geas ordeal essentially accepts a limit on the bonus
> Magic point provided by the initiation. If the initiate follows the geas,
> they get the Magic point, if they break it, they lose it until they live up
> to the geas again.

> This system would make burnout magicians more viable as magical characters
> (perhaps too viable). Natrually, a character whose Magic drops to 0 or less
> still becomes a mundane. A character can also choose to reject his geasa, in
> which case he permanently loses the Magic points associated with them, and
> cannot ever take other geasa, the character is on the path to burning out.
You might want to leave in the possibility of taking further geasa even if
earlier ones were rejected, imo. I really never liked the 'one-way' decision
of rejecting geasa.

> Naturally, one of the disadvantages is changing the existing system. I would
> like to know what everything thinks about this and what the possible
> ramifications might be. Remember, none of this is written in stone (or even
> in mud, at this point). We're just tossing around ideas. Mike can (and may)
> still decide the only things the SR2 magic system needs fixed are spell locks
> and grounding (his personal pet peeves).
You will see far more cybered mages, most likely, since they can lose magic to
cyber and 'get it back' with geasa. Some test characters might illustrate
whether this would disrupt balance, maybe some list members could work up a few
(trying hard as they can to min/max them in this direction?) and see what we
get? And think of what this could do for Physical Mages (if your campaign
allows them...). Mages tend to avoid things like Wired Reflexes because of the
high Magic losses, but with this rule, you might see a lot of sammie/mage
amalgams (not that that would be bad, they might still remain pretty balanced).

losthalo