From:	Unknown sender
Subject:	None
Date:	Unknown time and date

On Thu, 24 Jul 1997 11:12:38 +0100, Spike wrote:

> So
>lets start an OS-war.

##### # # # # ## #####
# # # # # # # # #
# ###### # # # # # #
# # # # ## # ###### #####
# # # ## ## # # #
# # # # # # # #


--
Barbie


==================================================
You can see the earth we`re high here we`re
climbing over sumertowm you can kiss the air we`re
gliding follow me for sumerland no sound no life
no essence we lay enstranged in our curious ways
memories lay beside us but i`m seeing through an
age who i`m through sumerland.

(Fields of the Nephilim-Eilzium-Weil of Sumer)

==================================================
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 10:58:58 +1000
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Ray & Tamara <macey@*******.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: [OT] AltMagick group
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> Does anybody kno about the Alt Magick group, it as listed somehere hen I
> as surfing for more SR stuff so it might have been on one of you pages.
> feel free to respond via personal e-mail and thanks for the help :)

Having a bit of trouble with that 'W' key are you?

Ray.

-----------------------------------------------------
| The universe is a big place, and whatever happens,|
| You will not be missed |
-----------------------------------------------------

EMAIL: macey@*******.com.au
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 22:34:12 EDT
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Bugs and Guns (a long time ago was: the uac dilemma)

On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 14:06:08 -0500 TopCat <topcat@***.NET> writes:

>But that is neither here nor there... I've missed a great deal of this
>thread and I was wondering what this had to do with unarmed combat?

At this point, not a whole lot:) It started out on unarmed combat, got
over to bugs and ItNW, from there to bugs, firearms and ItNW, and now
just bugs and guns (sorta:) I guess that would be the 'drift' thing they
keep talking about, huh:)


--
-Canthros
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud
and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
--Francis Bacon
http://members.aol.com/canthros1
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 22:34:11 EDT
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: The Chromium Mage (was: [SR3] Geasa)

On Thu, 24 Jul 1997 21:43:25 -0700 Michael Paff <mikepaff@***.COM>
writes:
>>Okay, here goes (I used rules _as_written_, not necessarily as
>intended,
>>and did not limit myself to the main book:)
>>
>> With geasa, Magic Rating is a full 6 (8) :)
>>
>Which 5 geasa did you plan for this character?


Well, I was figuring on Incantation and Gesture, Talisman (one of the
foci, most likely:) Domain (or Time, one or the other) and probably he
winds up with the Focus Geas from Awakenings (what with the various
foci:)


>>BIOWARE
>>---------
>>Cerebral Booster 1
>>Trauma Damper
>>
>An official ruling needs to be made as to how the Trauma Damper
>affects
>spellcasters (does it offset drain, is there any risk to Magic like
>stimpatches). Hopefully it will be addressed in SR3.


In the meantime, it's the single most useful piece of bioware for a
magician:):) With the possible exception of the Cerebral Booster (the
only thing on earth that boosts Astral Quickness:)


>>I don't know that the Chromium Mage there is all that munch
>(powerful,
>>but nearly crippled by the low physical attributes), but that's what
>I
>>came up with. I would have sprung for a Panther Cannon:) but I was on
>a
>>budget, and really wanted the foci:):)
>>
>On the subject of foci, with the variable Magic attribute that mages
>would have under the proposed change, which value is used to determine
>focus addiction?


Well, you could go the complicated route and rule that it's based on the
current one:) So that the moment he misses that 5th geas <EGMG>


--
-Canthros
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud
and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
--Francis Bacon
http://members.aol.com/canthros1
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 22:34:12 EDT
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Bugs and Guns (a long time ago was: the uac dilemma)

On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 14:43:30 -0400 Jonathan Hurley
<jhurley1@************.EDU> writes:

>> Yes, and on an average roll, the sammie wouldn't have hit the broad
>side
>> of a very large barn with that full auto burst (the sammie's TN
>would
>> have been at least 13, 12 or 11 with a laser sight or smartlink,
>> respectively).
>
<<Oh, I dunno. Example: Snapshot (a PC) honks off a nine-round burst at a
target. He's using an Ares Alpha combat gun(Two points recoil comp) with
a shock pad (another point.) He's got a strength of 7 (another 2 points
(FoF p83) for a grand reduction of 5, bringing his target number (at
close range, with his smartgun link) to 6. Not bad at all, all things
considered. If he was using a weapon with IGV4, he'd be looking at 4's
for a target number. Because of the way the Ares Alpha description is
worded, he could *add* the IGV4 to the weapon and get his TN down to 2.
(The weapon offers 2 points of recoil comp, *and* can take barrel mounted
accessories. Now I see why this weapon is so hard to get.)>>


Shh! I've got a player on this list:)

You might remember, however, that I didn't use an Ares Alpha (which, btw,
seems to be no harder to get than a AK-98, unless the figures I've got
are a bit screwed up (don't have FoF)). The AK doesn't come with any
recoil comp, doesn't come with any sighting stuff. It's a vanilla assault
rifle (if such a thing exists:) And I didn't use the Strength=>Recoil
rules from FoF (they're optional, after all:) So, I'd say my example
still stands:):) The fact is, your example is valid, just not what I was
talking about. So, even assuming an IGV4, Smartgun I, and Shock Pads on
the AK-98, you've got a Target Number of at least 6. Let's say partial
light and light smoke or fog (for visual effect and all:) and you're back
up to a 12. Remove the smoke, you've got an 8. Let's say buggy-boy is
running (+2) and that our friendly neighborhood chrome monster is also
walking, over difficult ground (ant hive, tunnels, low ceilings, rough
floors, etc:) and you're back at that 12. With a strenght of eight
there's another 2 points of recoil comp and you've got a ten, but let's
say the bug also has partial cover...etc, etc. How complicated do you
want to make it?


--
-Canthros
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud
and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
--Francis Bacon
http://members.aol.com/canthros1
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 20:13:07 -0700
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Michael Paff <mikepaff@***.COM>
Subject: Re: [GC] A Drive in the Country
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>>>I did preregister and I did get into A Drive in the Country. I got my
>>>prereg tickets yesterday and the interesting thing is that it lists Jill
>>>Lucas as the GM for this event.
>>>
>I'm in it as well now, so... gee... how many listmembers will be playing
>in that event?? :]
>
I'll be there! If it's like some tournament events we'll be able
to form our own teams (if anyone is interested).

>>>Anyway, I'm very excited. I got in to every game I signed up for, with
>>>only one (The Babylon Project) being shifted to a different time. It's
>>>going to be a busy 4 days!
>>
>Lucky you... Looks like I missed out on a couple games I signed up for...
>Drive in the Country was the only event I ended up with a ticket for...
>but I've got planty of Generic Tickets now...:]
>
I got lucky as well. I ended up with 6 of my 7 primary choices (4 are for
SR games), and one of my alternates. Not like two years ago when they lost
my pre-reg and all I was able to get was generics.

Mike Paff
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 00:18:05 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: "Wendy Wanders, Subject 117"
<KGGEWEHR@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Geasa
In-Reply-To: "Your message dated Thu, 24 Jul 1997 22:54:27 -0600"
<33D8317A.F918580F@*********.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

> OK what if he says he'll take a geasa of having to have something with
> him(can't think of the name) and he says the cybereyes are that thing?
> how about seeing, would this count as normal sight? would he be able to
> cast LOS spells at anything he sees? how about if he hat a transmiter
> that racieved a picture of somewhere else, could he cast a spell on
> that? It is a good system but still needs some work. :-)

Of course, cybereyes always still count as normal vision (paid for with
Essence, man, there a *part* of you).

What does the transmitted image have to do with this??

I'm not quite sure you're still on the same thread, here... or maybe you need
to clear some things up.

losthalo
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 00:20:37 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: "Wendy Wanders, Subject 117"
<KGGEWEHR@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Geasa
In-Reply-To: "Your message dated Fri, 25 Jul 1997 13:06:58 +0300"
<Pine.SUN.3.96.970725125834.1930A-100000@********.csd.uch.gr>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

You wrote:
> c) What happens upon initiation ?
> MV=> Either gain a new Magic Point and keep the geas or lose the geas
> without droping in Magic rating. (Actualy abandon the geas, losing a point
> that is instantly regained free of geasa.)
Exactly.

> And what is that I hear about using geasa to counter cyberware?
> I thought geasa where used to counter magic loss due to wounds etc., not
> due to essence loss. Essence loss should remove Magic points permanently,
> without any options for keeping them (You are making yourself weaker and
> unable to hold his full potential of astral energy).
losses of Magic to anything are treated the same. You lose it to cyber, it's
the same as a loss to a deadly wound, et cetera. It's been that way since 1st
ed.

losthalo
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 01:06:40 -0400
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Steve Kenson <TalonMail@***.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Area Spells

From: Justin Pinnow <vanyel@*******.NET>:
> Example: Talon tosses a manaball at a security mage, two corp guards and
an
> elemental the mage has hanging around in astral space. Talon can see the
mage
> and one guard. The other guard is up against the wall on the other side
of
> the open doorway. The elemental is hovering near the sec-mage in astral
form.
> Talon targets using his normal vision. He can see the mage and one guard
> unaided and targets his manaball in their midst. The elemental and the
other
> guard are within the radius of the spell, but they are not affected
because
> Talon cannot see them and therefor cannot form a magical link with them.
The
> mage and the corp guard make Spell Resistance Tests while the elemental
and
> the other guard are unaffected.

>>>>Question: why isn't the Elemental included? I understand your
reasoning,
but astral perception is used (albeit briefly) during spellcasting in order
to synch...er target all the beings in the area. Thus, during that time,
all the targets of the spell are established...wouldn't this include the
Elemental then?<<<<<

Because the moment of awareness of the astral plane is so brief and
sub-conscious as to be nearly unnoticable. It's not usable for assensing and,
therefore, useless for targeting. In the example above, Talon forms a magical
link with his potential targets using his physical vision. When he throws the
spell, his sense open to astral space for a microsecond as the spell energy
surges from him to his target(s). IMHO, he doesn't even have time to look
around and go "oh, look, an elemental."

I think part of the problem is the current example about "synchronizing
auras" in SR2 makes it sound like the caster uses astral perception, looks
around, carefully and methodically matches his aura to the target(s) and lets
fly when in fact (IMHO) the whole process happens in a single, almost
instinctive, action before the caster has a chance to be aware of anything on
the astral. A spellcaster hinks about synchronizing auras no more tthan a
trained martial artist thinks about making a block in the middle of a fight.
It just happens; trained reflex.

Steve K.
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 01:06:43 -0400
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Steve Kenson <TalonMail@***.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Geasa

Gurth <gurth@******.NL> wrote:
>With that last bit, do you mean that a) the geas-restricted Magic points
>get replaced by non-geas MPs, in other words that the geas gets removed
>from the MP but the magician gains no additional MP; or b) that the
>character gains an MP as normal but simply doesn't bother sticking to the
>geas for the "lost" MP? Hmm, this may need a "for instance"...
>
>For instance, Jeff the grade 0 initiate loses a magic point (somebody
>shot off his arm and he failed his magic loss check). He chooses a geas of
>gesturing for the lost MP, so if he gestures he has a Magic rating of 6,
>while if he doesn't, it's 5.
>Then he initiates to grade 1. If using method A, he'd have a Magic rating
>of 6 and no geas; with method B his Magic rating is 6 if he doesn't
>gesture, and 7 when he does.
>
>I'm in favor of allowing the player to choose which of the two (s)he
>wants.

As am I. I meant to say pretty much the same thing you said, only I think you
probably said it a little more clearly. Essentially speaking, under the
proposed system, Initiation has no real effect on geasa. It just increases
the Magic attribute. Whether or not the character chooses to permanently drop
the geased Magic point (thereby losing it) is actually a seperate choice. A
character who is initiating is simply getting new Magic points they can use
to replace geased ones if they choose to get rid of them.

That's a pretty long-winded way of saying, yes, that's how I see it working
too : )

Steve K.
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 01:06:45 -0400
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Steve Kenson <TalonMail@***.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Area Spells

Mike Elkins <MikeE@*********.COM> wrote:

>Steve Kenson wrote:
>>2) A valid target is one which the caster: a) can
>>see or assense, unaided by technology and,

>Point of clarification, please: what about targets
>who are under the effects of invisibility, using
>stealth, a spirit's concealment power etc? The
>casting mage COULD see them if he rolls high
>enough on his perception roll, but what if he
>doesn't even bother to look? In other words,
>does the mage have to "see" them, or "notice"
>them?

In all of those cases I would have the gamemaster make a secret Perception
Test for the spellcaster against the target in question. If the caster makes
it, then he can see the target well enough to cast a spell at them (perhaps
with a TN penalty for the target still having some visual cover). If the
caster blows the Perception Test, then they can't see the target and the
target is not a valid one (even for an area spell).

Of course, if a magician has reason to suspect an invisible ormagically
concealed opponent, he can just switch to astral perception and zap them that
way.

Steve K.
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 01:06:51 -0400
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Steve Kenson <TalonMail@***.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Area Spells

Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK> writes:

>Steve Kenson <talonmail@***.com> writes:
>> This is how all area-effect combat spells (and other area-type spells like
>> Chaos) work. The only exception is Damaging Manipulations, which create a
>> real, physical medium the caster directs at the targets. The blast radius
of
>> a damaging manipulation affects all physical targets in the area of
effect,
>> whether the caster can see them or not.
>
>The one we could use here is LOS and damaging manipulations. Is the
>TN to hit the security guard behind the door in your example [i
>snipped] with a flamebomb (he being immune to anything but a DM)
>landed in the middle of the doorway betwwen Mr mage and guard 1 a 4
>'because you have a clear LOS on the doorway' or a 12 'becasue the
>target is invisible +8 for blind fire'?

The corp guard under full cover gets hit by the DM spell from the center of
the spell's blast radius, just as if it were a grenade, so he gets no TN
bonus for "cover" unless he has cover relative to the spell's "ground
zero"
(ie, a barrier between him and the blast). The caster wasn't necessarily
targeting the guard (since he didn't even know the guard was there) but the
DM affects everyone in the area, just like a normal explosion. If the caster
were throwing, say, Flame Volt, and knew there was someone hidden behind the
wall and wanted to shoot through the specifically wall at him, then he would
have to take the +8 "Blind Fire" modifier just like any other ranged
attacker.

>And clear up what the descriptions imply but the rules don't state
>that the elemental is immune to the flamebomb even if the mage
>casting it is astrally percepting because the spell is dual but
>explodes on the physical plane only 'because the magical flame must
>have a physical component'.

Correct. In fact, even if the spell were Powerball, the elemental would not
be affected. In my rough outline of the SR3 magic rules, a Physical spell
will not affect a target with no physical body, like a spirit in astral form.
So, yes, even if the caster were using astral perception, the flame bomb
wouldn't affect the elemental at all.

>Similarly that you cannot cast DM's while
>astrally projecting (as astral magicians have no armour thay are FAR
>too lethal were this to be allowed).

Again, correct. DMs are different from combat spells in that they ground at
the CASTER'S location, creating an elemental medium, which the caster then
magically projects as a normal Ranged Attack. Therefore, DMs require the
caster to be in his physical body in order to cast them, they cannot travel
through astral space alone.

>It might also be worth making
>the 'no projecting and sustaining spells' rule clearer.

Basically, as I see it, leaving and returning to your body are Exclusive
activities, so you cannot be Sustaining any spells, or performing any other
magical activities, on the Action when you astrally project or return to your
physical body. Both actions take a lot of concentration. Not only that but
(IMHO) you also cannot perform other Exclusive activities (casting Exclusive
spells or summoning spirits) while Astral Projecting since it is also a
"magical activity" and thererfor prevents the performance of Exclusive feats.
Astral Perception is a more passive activity, and so does not affect
Exclusive actions. You can cast a spell, then switch to astral perception
while sustaining it, but if you then want to astral project, you have to drop
the spell in order to do it.

>And while we
>are at it clear up the effect of initiate shielding and damaging
>manipulations, does it as i belive rasie the effective body but not
>the 'fixed' TN4 which is the same as spell defence, or does it plain
>rasie TN's in which case initiates with some shielding left are
>utterly immune to magic (unless the rule stating you need net
>successes to hurt peple with magic is revoked, which is a house rule
>i use).

Here I must disagree. Although DMs create an actual physical medium to damage
their targets, this matter or energy is still sustained and directed by magic
and, therefore, can be deflected by magical defenses (such as Spell Defense
and Shielding).

However, Shielding does not necessarily make an Initiate invulnerable to
magic. Sure, if an Initiate goes full-defensive and pours all of his Magic
Pool into Shielding, then he's going to be very hard to affect with spells,
but that's as it should be, IMHO. There are still several other factors:

1) DMs, unlike combat spells, must be reduced like normal combat damage. The
Spell Resistance Test for a DM is actually a Damage Resistance Test, so the
Initiate is going to NEED those extra dice if he wants to reduce the damage
of a Flame Bomb with 2-3 successes down to nothing.

2) I allow other Initiates to use Centering to offset the penalties of an
opponent's Shielding, focusing their power through the shield. I don't know
if this will find it's way into the rules, but, as I see it, Shielding
imposes a TN penalty, and Centering allows an Initiate to overcome TN
penalties, so...

3) Lastly, a magician up against a heavily shielding Initiate simply has to
be SMARTER. I'm reminded of the scene from Bob Charrette's second book
(CHOOSE YOUR ENEMIES CAREFULLY, I believe) where the evil Archdruid confronts
Hart and sneers how his shielding and anti-bullet barrier make him
invulnerable and Hart just says "whatever" and blows the floor out from under
him. He hits the dirt, stunned, dropping his spells and defenses, and she
shoots him dead. Flame bomb can't get through the guy's shielding? Bet it can
take down the roof above his head, then...

Whew, that's enough thinking for me at 1:00 AM. I'm outta here...

Steve K.
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 00:14:18 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: TopCat <topcat@***.NET>
Subject: Re: The Chromium Mage
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 07:01 PM 7/25/97 -0500, Joshua wrote:
>Why exactly do you want to increase his magic pool? He already has more
>than he knows what to do with.... The maximum number of dice that can be
>allocated for magical tests is equal to the _Magic Rating_, not the force
>of the spell or any other value IIRC. In this case it is 1. Kinda cuts
>back on the neccessity for a high sorcery, doesn't it? And with 7 dice at
>his command for Casting and Drain, instead of 12, he's not nearly as
>beasty, or am I missing something?

Drain can have as many dice thrown into it as one wishes...(pg. 85 SR2).
Whne this guy is casting force 12 spells, he'll need all the drain dice he
can find. Also, spell defense dice are very important. It adds to the
whole invincibility factor...
--
Bob Ooton
topcat@***.net
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 01:53:19 -0400
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Justin Pinnow <vanyel@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Area Spells
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> From: Steve Kenson <TalonMail@***.COM>
> Date: Saturday, July 26, 1997 1:06 AM

> Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK> writes:

> >Steve Kenson <talonmail@***.com> writes:

<Snippity snip snip>

> >And while we
> >are at it clear up the effect of initiate shielding and damaging
> >manipulations, does it as i belive rasie the effective body but not
> >the 'fixed' TN4 which is the same as spell defence, or does it plain
> >rasie TN's in which case initiates with some shielding left are
> >utterly immune to magic (unless the rule stating you need net
> >successes to hurt peple with magic is revoked, which is a house rule
> >i use).

> Here I must disagree. Although DMs create an actual physical medium to
damage
> their targets, this matter or energy is still sustained and directed by
magic
> and, therefore, can be deflected by magical defenses (such as Spell
Defense
> and Shielding).

Okay, I know this has been raised in the past, but I don't recall the
outcome. I am curious to know how people use Shielding and Combat Pool
dice in relation to DM spells. Allowing a mage to shield against a DM and
jump out of the way (thus using Combat Pool) would make it far too easy to
not get damaged by a DM. However, they both should apply somehow according
to the game mechanics.

One possible suggestion would be to now allow the Shielding to increase the
TN for casting the spell (thus, it would still remain a 4), but would
increase the dice rolled to resist the spell, as usual. Then, Combat Pool
dice could be used as normal. Is this too weird?

<More Snippage>

Well, I must say that I am VERY grateful for the clarifications you made in
this post, Steve. :) You really quantified a lot of thought I have on
some areas of magic and clarified a few points that I really thought needed
clarification. :) Not bad for 1am. Not bad for anytime. :)

> Whew, that's enough thinking for me at 1:00 AM. I'm outta here...

> Steve K.

Justin :)
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 01:54:39 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: TopCat <topcat@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Bugs and Guns (a long time ago was: the uac dilemma)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 10:34 PM 7/25/97 EDT, you wrote:
>>But that is neither here nor there... I've missed a great deal of this
>>thread and I was wondering what this had to do with unarmed combat?

>At this point, not a whole lot:) It started out on unarmed combat, got
>over to bugs and ItNW, from there to bugs, firearms and ItNW, and now
>just bugs and guns (sorta:) I guess that would be the 'drift' thing they
>keep talking about, huh:)

And you all know that *I* would never do anything like drift in a topic... heh

Thanks for the clarification. I wish I wouldn't have thrown away all of the
uac stuff, I might've found something good to yammer on about in there... ah
well, there'll be other topics :)
--
Bob Ooton
topcat@***.net
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 18:04:57 +1000
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: the uac dilemma (minor insect spirit spoilers!)
In-Reply-To: <33D861FC.249463EE@*********.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

> > ... or a baseball bat covered with insecticide... that's the only way we
> > lived through bug city.
>
> My players in a Bug City campaign coated themselves in DEET (a no
> bullshit bug repellant) during a hive attack. Had to give em the target
> # mods for that; I failed to consider the idea myself :/ Gotta watch
> them players, I swear! :)

I hope you killed them shortly afterwards from nerve damage. Spraying
bug spray on weapons is one thing - you can spray it so thick it's
dripping off the weapon. i wouldn't want to spray the stuff on myself,
though - it's a rather nasty nerve toxin.

I also wouldn't say that the sort of insect spray intended for spraying
on yourself would hurt the bugs much - that's an insect REPELLANT. What
you need to hurt them is an INSECTICIDE. Chemically different, stronger,
and NOT the sort of thing I want to spray on myself.

Lady Jestyr

-------------------------------------------------------------
Who says I'm crazy? I prefer the term 'sensibility deficient'
- Tamino
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 14:54:40 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Organization: Affilated Artists
Subject: Re: Skill Levels
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

At 24-Jul-97 wrote J. Keith Henry:


>Oh god I can see it now (actually, I've had a few players with character and
>these skills...hey Barbie, where's your Seduction Skill? A cat shaman I once
>knew would have considered you an amateur.

Oh God? what have you in mind?
An amateur maybe but I`m starting this kind of work lately.
Doing it mainly for just two years IC time.
Seduction, ops I forgot this one (shame on me) 20 :-)
And I get a -4 to all TN# against the opposite gender this plus my
rediculus high charisma rating does well enough.
In an live performance I had once an perfomence rating off over 1100.

>Actually, depends on your point of view...Victor considered Binder's
>Enchanting Skill to be high for -his game-, so I am certain that some/many
>will consider the above frighteningly high. Hell, for Binder-Uncensored, the
>above are pretty fair to outright excellent.

Thats true our powerlevel is in our old charactergroup fairly high.
Me going for 512 karma the rest between 450 and 300.
And we are six and up most of the time.
Most of them have some skill in the range of 12 to 20.
Mainly for their main field of activity but some are just for "hobby"
skills like painting dance or so.


--
Barbie


==================================================
You can see the earth we`re high here we`re
climbing over sumertowm you can kiss the air we`re
gliding follow me for sumerland no sound no life
no essence we lay enstranged in our curious ways
memories lay beside us but i`m seeing through an
age who i`m through sumerland.

(Fields of the Nephilim-Eilzium-Weil of Sumer)

==================================================
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 10:11:59 -0400
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Kristling the Weird <kristlingweird@*********.COM>
Organization: Founder & Supreme Dictator for Life, Lightmoon Project
Subject: Re: the uac dilemma (minor insect spirit spoilers!)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Lady Jestyr wrote:
>
> > > ... or a baseball bat covered with insecticide... that's the only way we
> > > lived through bug city.
> >
> > My players in a Bug City campaign coated themselves in DEET (a no
> > bullshit bug repellant) during a hive attack. Had to give em the target
> > # mods for that; I failed to consider the idea myself :/ Gotta watch
> > them players, I swear! :)
>
> I hope you killed them shortly afterwards from nerve damage. Spraying
> bug spray on weapons is one thing - you can spray it so thick it's
> dripping off the weapon. i wouldn't want to spray the stuff on myself,
> though - it's a rather nasty nerve toxin.
Okay. Sure. Then how come I don't die using modren bug repellents? The
active ingrident in them these days IS DEET! Maybe we should step back
from a sec... If it's pure DEET, then yah. If it's a commercial product,
no.

--So first I get the Corbalist Crystal....
Kristling The Weird
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Castle/5482/
kristlingweird@*********.com
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 11:46:00 -0400
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Justin Pinnow <vanyel@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: the uac dilemma (minor insect spirit spoilers!)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> From: Kristling the Weird <kristlingweird@*********.COM>
> Date: Saturday, July 26, 1997 10:11 AM

> Lady Jestyr wrote:

> > I hope you killed them shortly afterwards from nerve damage. Spraying
> > bug spray on weapons is one thing - you can spray it so thick it's
> > dripping off the weapon. i wouldn't want to spray the stuff on myself,
> > though - it's a rather nasty nerve toxin.
> Okay. Sure. Then how come I don't die using modren bug repellents? The
> active ingrident in them these days IS DEET! Maybe we should step back
> from a sec... If it's pure DEET, then yah. If it's a commercial product,
> no.

My feeling has always been that Bugs are supposed to be hard to kill. Bugs
are supposed to be feared, even by veteran Shadowrunners. I think it's way
too easy to kill the Bugs if you treat them as having the Vulerability to
Insecticides as written in the rules. I would halve the effects of the
insecticide on them. Yes, they look a lot like giant bugs. However, they
are from another realm, thus it is easy to justify Insecticides not even
working on them at all.

But that's just an optional thing. Under the standard rules, it's easy to
kill them with insecticides.

> --So first I get the Corbalist Crystal....
> Kristling The Weird

Justin :)
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 12:55:33 -0700
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: "David R. Lowe" <dlowe@****.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Area Spells
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 1:06 AM 7/26/97, Steve Kenson wrote:
<snip stuff about area affect spells>

OK, how bout this? Does glass stop LOS astrally. I know it doesn't affect
non-DM spells if the mage is targeting normally, but would it prevent a
target from being affected if the mage was using astral sight to target? We
have ruled that glass does block astral LOS, but I wonder if there are any
other opininons...

D.
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 16:25:36 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: "Wendy Wanders, Subject 117"
<KGGEWEHR@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Area Spells
In-Reply-To: "Your message dated Sat, 26 Jul 1997 12:55:33 -0700"
<v01540b00afffa4d43d10@[140.174.162.214]>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

You wrote:
> At 1:06 AM 7/26/97, Steve Kenson wrote:
> <snip stuff about area affect spells>

> OK, how bout this? Does glass stop LOS astrally. I know it doesn't affect
> non-DM spells if the mage is targeting normally, but would it prevent a
> target from being affected if the mage was using astral sight to target? We
> have ruled that glass does block astral LOS, but I wonder if there are any
> other opininons...

Can I ask why you ruled that it bolcks LOS on the astral? Glass is glass, it's
transparent, you see through it, I don't know why that should change on the
astral...

losthalo
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 22:28:59 +0000
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <runefo@***.uio.no>
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Organization: The University of Oslo
Subject: Re: [SR3] Karma and Attributes
In-Reply-To: <199707081721.LAA20975@******>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

> [snip: x2 vs x1 for cost to increase Attributes]
> |
> | Still somewhat abuseable that way as well. My house rule (and
> | somebody else's on the list as well so it's got to be good B>]# ) is that
> | every increase in attributes after CharGen costs new attribute level
> | times the number of increase it is. Therefor the first increase is the
> | standard 1 times, the second is 2 times, the third is 3 times, etc. This
> | greatly discourages starting with lower stats and working your way up to
> | straight 6's. This was a problem in our games here until we added that
> | rule. Something like this would be great in SR3.
>
> Doh! I forgot about that one (suprise :) Question: do you apply the
> x2 multiplier when increasing stats beyond racial maximum in addition
> to the multiplier per increase? I.e., if a character started at 6,
> increased to 7, and now wants to increase to 8 does it cost (8 x2 x2)
> 32 karma?

I'm one of those other people that posted that house rule, and I do
not use it that way. (Adds a +2 multiplier when above racial stats,
that is, I don't.). Each attribute is pipped when it's
increased, and (pips*0.5+1)*next attribute value is the karma cost.
I use 0.5, david used 1. I suspect 1 is a bit harsh, but that's
me.

On another note: Increasing cybered, uncybered and magically
increased/boosted stats...

There's a discrepancy here.
Mr. Street samurai with muscle replacement 4 has to pay (say, 5+1) +
4 * 3 (basic rules) karma to increase his strength to 10. (30
karma.). A mage with Increase Strength spell locked just turns off
the lock, increases the attribute, and reactivates the lock. Pays 21
karma. What would happen if the sammie can deactivate the muscle
replacement? Also, the physad with boosted strenght compared to the
physad with (incr. attrib. strength) ?

It would be easier, and more balanced, IMHO, to let everyone increase
their attributes at a cost as if they were unaugmented and unaltered
from their natural value.
(Just thought of a new use of the 'decrease attribute' spell... :) )

Lastly, sorry if this has been discussed to death. I got back from
holidays with 2500 mails in the shadowrn folder... I kinda thought
for 1/5th of a second and deleted'em.).

--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 22:28:59 +0000
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <runefo@***.uio.no>
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Organization: The University of Oslo
Subject: Re: [SR3] Area Spells
In-Reply-To: <v01540b00afffa4d43d10@[140.174.162.214]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

> OK, how bout this? Does glass stop LOS astrally. I know it doesn't affect
> non-DM spells if the mage is targeting normally, but would it prevent a
> target from being affected if the mage was using astral sight to target? We
> have ruled that glass does block astral LOS, but I wonder if there are any
> other opininons...

I seem to remember reading that since the basic nature of glass is
transparency (it's its intention, mood, whatever) it is transparent
in astral space too.

But if that was a player arguing with me, something in a rulebook, or
whatever, I do not remember. But it sounds ok - and I prefer astral
space to look and work as 'normal' as possible (while still allowing
for a lot of artistic freedom for the GM, of course.... did I say
artistic? I meant sadistic. :)



--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 16:58:03 -0400
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: [Admin] Misc and FAQ Stuff
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Arno R. Lehmann once dared to write,

> :) So lets start an OS-war.

OK. I win! B>]#

><yawn>I'll simply ignore it ...

But I was about to do my victory dance. B>[#


<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 14:46:22 -0700
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: "David R. Lowe" <dlowe@****.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Area Spells
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 4:25 PM 7/26/97, Wendy Wanders, Subject 117 wrote:

>
>Can I ask why you ruled that it bolcks LOS on the astral? Glass is glass, it's
>transparent, you see through it, I don't know why that should change on the
>astral...
>


Ooops. Just reread the BBB. P 145 "transparent objects retain that quality..."
Still. I think it would be more interesting to judge that since glass is
just a big sheet of inaninimate matter, it act any other similar object on
the astral. Just to mess with the pc's pre-conceptions.

D.

I would've asked about grounding through glass, but the answer is obvious.
How else do you get "ground glass"?
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 18:02:28 -0400
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Justin Pinnow <vanyel@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Karma and Attributes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: [SR3] Karma and Attributes
> Date: Saturday, July 26, 1997 6:28 PM

<Snip>

> On another note: Increasing cybered, uncybered and magically
> increased/boosted stats...

> There's a discrepancy here.
> Mr. Street samurai with muscle replacement 4 has to pay (say, 5+1) +
> 4 * 3 (basic rules) karma to increase his strength to 10. (30
> karma.). A mage with Increase Strength spell locked just turns off
> the lock, increases the attribute, and reactivates the lock. Pays 21
> karma. What would happen if the sammie can deactivate the muscle
> replacement? Also, the physad with boosted strenght compared to the
> physad with (incr. attrib. strength) ?

> It would be easier, and more balanced, IMHO, to let everyone increase
> their attributes at a cost as if they were unaugmented and unaltered
> from their natural value.
> (Just thought of a new use of the 'decrease attribute' spell... :) )

Which would get just as messy as the Increase Attribute spell....

I feel that since it's the sammies that tend to increase their attributes
the most, that it's fine by me if they get stuck paying more than mages
because a spell lock can be turned off. At least their cyber/bioware can't
be grounded through. It all has its ups and downs. I would also rule that
Physads can't turn of their increased attributes, either. Thus, they too
would get stuck paying the higher cost....which is also fine by me for the
same reason.

> Lastly, sorry if this has been discussed to death. I got back from
> holidays with 2500 mails in the shadowrn folder... I kinda thought
> for 1/5th of a second and deleted'em.).

Heh.

> --
> Fade

Justin :)
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 18:09:12 -0400
Reply-To: craigjwjr@*********.net
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Craig J Wilhelm Jr <craigjwjr@*********.NET>
Organization: Afterlife Incorperated
Subject: Re: [SR3] Area Spells
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

David R. Lowe wrote:

> OK, how bout this? Does glass stop LOS astrally. I know it doesn't
> affect
> non-DM spells if the mage is targeting normally, but would it prevent
> a
> target from being affected if the mage was using astral sight to
> target? We
> have ruled that glass does block astral LOS, but I wonder if there are
> any
> other opininons...

The BBB is (sorta) specific about this. Actually it's downright
confusing at times, but humor me for a moment.

Quote, p. 145 BBB
"Inanimate objects are visible because of reflected light, and
block the passage of magical energy and emotions, two primary
elements of the astral form, or aura. Because such objects block the
flow of the aura, astral beings cannot assence through them. These
objects possess no aura or astral form of thier own, however, and
so astral beings can freely pass through the astral position
corresponding to the object's physical space. In astral space, one
cannotsee or assence through a wall, though it is a simple matter to
right through it. Transparent objects retain that quality, however."


--
Craig J Wilhelm Jr

Reality is nothing but a refuge for those who can't handle role-playing.

http://home.earthlink.net/~craigjwjr/

-------------BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
v3.12
GAT/$ d? s+:+ a-- C++ !U--- !P !L- !E-- W++ N++
o K- w++ O> !M-- !V PS+ PE+++ Y+ PGP- t-
5+++ X-- R++ tv b++ DI-- D+ G e++ h* r+ y++**
--------------END GEEK CODE BLOCK--------------
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 23:40:31 +0100
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: the uac dilemma (minor insect spirit spoilers!)
In-Reply-To: <33DA05AF.4F67@*********.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0

In message <33DA05AF.4F67@*********.com>, Kristling the Weird
<kristlingweird@*********.COM> writes
>Okay. Sure. Then how come I don't die using modren bug repellents? The
>active ingrident in them these days IS DEET! Maybe we should step back
>from a sec... If it's pure DEET, then yah. If it's a commercial product,
>no.

DEET is a repellent. It makes the insect think "Yuck!" and fly away: it
doesn't kill them. (Hateful memories of Scottish forest midges during an
Army exercise... each of us was the centre of a seething globe of black
specks, all landing on our repellent-soaked skins and then taking off
again, usually but not always without biting... none of the bastard
things seemed to be dying, though)

Your typical really effective insecticide (rather than a pyrethoid like
domestic flyspray) is an organophosphorous derivative: basically, nerve
gas. Dieldrin, for instance, is almost as toxic to humans as it is to
insects.


--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 19:20:16 EDT
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Area Spells

On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 12:55:33 -0700 "David R. Lowe" <dlowe@****.COM>
writes:
<<OK, how bout this? Does glass stop LOS astrally. I know it doesn't
affect non-DM spells if the mage is targeting normally, but would it
prevent a target from being affected if the mage was using astral sight
to target? We have ruled that glass does block astral LOS, but I wonder
if there are any other opininons...>>


Of course there are other opinions! There are _always_ other opinions:)

By current rules, I don't see why it should. If you have to 'synch' auras
with the target (in my mind, this represents a matching of 'astral
frequencies' between the spell and its intended target) and a mirror
provides valid LOS, I see no reason why glass wouldn't also. Glass
remains transparent, after all.

--
-Canthros
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud
and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
--Francis Bacon
http://members.aol.com/canthros1
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 19:20:16 EDT
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Area Spells

On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 14:46:22 -0700 "David R. Lowe" <dlowe@****.COM>
writes:

<<Ooops. Just reread the BBB. P 145 "transparent objects retain that
quality...">>


It was my understanding that all objects on the astral plane retain all
characteristics of the physical existance except in that all non-living
objects not in their natural, non-processed state are intangible (but not
invisible). Glass remains transparent, mirrors reflect, magnifying lenses
magnify, etc and they behave this way in respect to both physical and
astral information (so you can see someone's aura through a window, in a
mirror, through binoculars, etc). But that's simply an extrapolation of
what's written in the book and isn't really supported or denied by the
rules as written.


<<Still. I think it would be more interesting to judge that since glass
is just a big sheet of inaninimate matter, it act any other similar
object on the astral. Just to mess with the pc's pre-conceptions.>>


Except that the astral plane (and magic in general for that matter), by
its very nature is determined and shaped by preconceptions. If you can
rationalize why a character *believes* that he cannot target through
glass, along mirrors, etc, well then...
Mwahahahaha!! :)


<<I would've asked about grounding through glass, but the answer is
obvious. How else do you get "ground glass"?>>


I'd thwap you for that, but I'm too lazy to dig out my auto-carp, so
consider yourself darn lucky:)


--
-Canthros
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud
and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
--Francis Bacon
http://members.aol.com/canthros1
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 14:31:57 +1000
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Chris Maxfield <cmaxfiel@****.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: The Chromium Mage (was: [SR3] Geasa)
In-Reply-To: <19970724.224141.18319.1.lobo1@****.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 22:42 24/07/97 EDT, John E Pederson wrote:
>Okay, here goes (I used rules _as_written_, not necessarily as intended,
>and did not limit myself to the main book:)
>
>Name:
>Race: Human
>Adept: Hermetic Sorcerer

<<<snip>>>

>Magic 1 (3)
> With geasa, Magic Rating is a full 6 (8) :)

<<<snip>>

>Cerebral Booster 1
>Trauma Damper

I just love this bioware for magicians.

<<<snip>>>

>I don't know that the Chromium Mage there is all that munch (powerful,
>but nearly crippled by the low physical attributes), but that's what I
>came up with. I would have sprung for a Panther Cannon:) but I was on a
>budget, and really wanted the foci:):)

And now for the down side. All the following actions/abilities are rated
against a magician's magic rating and are only considered in that light.
I've listed those for which I believe the Chrome Wiz's geasa will not work
or are simply not relevant:

a. the Chrome Wiz's ability to banish spirits is very poor;
b. the Chrome Wiz's ability to command uncontrolled spirits is very poor;
c. ritual magic maximum sustaining time is frag all if the Chrome Wiz is
the team leader;
d. the astrally projecting Chrome Wiz's ability to pass astral barriers is
almost non-existent;
e. an initiated Chrome Wiz's Masking is pretty ineffective versus any other
initiate;
f. the Chrome Wiz's aura reading ability is poor;
g. astral quests are much more dangerous;
h. the Chrome Wiz's risk of foci addiction is serious if he ever uses the
foci without also using his geasa.
... and there are probably more.

So, there are still some solid limitations on the Chrome Wiz under the
proposed new geasa rules.


Chris


_______________________________________________________________
Chris Maxfield We are restless because of incessant
<cmaxfiel@****.org.au> change, but we would be frightened if
Canberra, Australia change were stopped.
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 14:47:16 +1000
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Chris Maxfield <cmaxfiel@****.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: the uac dilemma
In-Reply-To: <199707251542.JAA15522@******>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 09:42 25/07/97 -0600, David Buehrer wrote:
>Refresh everyone's pools at the beginning of combat. From that point
>on the characters' pools refresh at the *end* of their action
>phases.
<<<snip>>>

Yep. I saw this the first time you posted but somehow I lost it. I've just
replied, privately, to Mark Steedman discussing the points he made in his
last post. As I said to Mark I feel this problem of the initiative loser
refreshing his combat pool to soon is a conundrum. Or - I thought it was
until I just discussed your suggestion with a friend. I like your idea.

A question, though I think you mentioned it in your first post. Do you have
this refreshing take place in all SR combat eg. ranged, DM spells, etc...
and do you have all pools refreshing this way eg. magic, control, hacking,
etc... ?

Chris


_______________________________________________________________
Chris Maxfield We are restless because of incessant
<cmaxfiel@****.org.au> change, but we would be frightened if
Canberra, Australia change were stopped.
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 14:31:28 +1000
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Chris Maxfield <cmaxfiel@****.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Area Spells
In-Reply-To: <970726010645_-1475869339@*******.mail.aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 01:06 26/07/97 -0400, Steve Kenson wrote:
>>Point of clarification, please: what about targets
>>who are under the effects of invisibility, using
>>stealth, a spirit's concealment power etc? The
>>casting mage COULD see them if he rolls high
>>enough on his perception roll, but what if he
>>doesn't even bother to look? In other words,
>>does the mage have to "see" them, or "notice"
>>them?
>
>In all of those cases I would have the gamemaster make a secret Perception
>Test for the spellcaster against the target in question. If the caster makes
>it, then he can see the target well enough to cast a spell at them (perhaps
>with a TN penalty for the target still having some visual cover). If the
>caster blows the Perception Test, then they can't see the target and the
>target is not a valid one (even for an area spell).

All these concealment circumstances just add target penalties to perception
tests. How about simply adding these penalties to the magician's target
numbers?

Chris

_______________________________________________________________
Chris Maxfield We are restless because of incessant
<cmaxfiel@****.org.au> change, but we would be frightened if
Canberra, Australia change were stopped.
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 11:53:07 +0100
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <gurth@******.nl>
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Organization: Plastic Warriors
Subject: Insecticides vs. repellents (was Re: the uac dilemma)
In-Reply-To: <33DA05AF.4F67@*********.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Kristling the Weird said on 10:11/26 Jul 97...

> > I hope you killed them shortly afterwards from nerve damage. Spraying
> > bug spray on weapons is one thing - you can spray it so thick it's
> > dripping off the weapon. i wouldn't want to spray the stuff on myself,
> > though - it's a rather nasty nerve toxin.
> Okay. Sure. Then how come I don't die using modren bug repellents? The
> active ingrident in them these days IS DEET! Maybe we should step back
> from a sec... If it's pure DEET, then yah. If it's a commercial product,
> no.

I believe Lady J already said this, but an insect repellent (sp?) isn't
the same as an insecticide. A repellent makes them go away because they
don't like the stuff, while an insecticide kills them. Repellents may be
toxic as well, but they don't have to be; their primary function is making
sure insects stay away from where the stuff is sprayed.

Insecticides, pesticides, and all other -cides are bad for people, it just
depends on the dose you get. Spraying a bit of insecticide in your
room to kill a few mosquitos won't hurt you; spraying the whole can in an
enclosed room and sitting in the cloud for a day could be bad for your
health...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
And you can try and you just might...
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 08:38:48 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: John Dukes <dukes@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Insecticides vs. repellents
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I wonder what the price of a can of bug repellant was during the height of
the Chicago infestation. I bet a tube of Off was worth its weight in gold. I
dont have the Bug City book, but just out of curiosity, does it list Chicago
prices for things like that?

John
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 10:09:01 -0700
Reply-To: granite@**.net
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <granite@**.net>
From: GRANITE <granite@**.NET>
Organization: Granite Forge Productions
Subject: [GC] Granite's game at Gen Con
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

>Anyways, one of the tickets is for the S/R Drive in the Country
>tourney. I had been under the impression this was Granite's game,
>however the ticket lists Jill Lucas as GM.

Actually, I am one of 12 Judges for the first round..The number of
judges drops of for each round...But I hope to get the final round
as well..Those as the best of the best...

>I know Granite would be the best to ask on this, but I think he's gone
>for a few days ain't he?

I was and now I'm back.. :)
Actually I am suprised at the name on the ticket as well...I would
have thought it would have been Rich Osterhout...He is the one in
overall charge of the SR Tourney...
--------------------------------GRANITE
"Rock Steady"
===============================================
Lord, Grant Me The Serenity To Accept The Things I Cannot Change,
The Courage To Change The Things I Can,
And The Wisdom To Hide The Bodies Of Those People I Had To Kill
Because They Pissed Me Off.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ShadowRunner's Serenity Prayer
===============================================
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 10:09:03 -0700
Reply-To: granite@**.net
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <granite@**.net>
From: GRANITE <granite@**.NET>
Organization: Granite Forge Productions
Subject: [GC] Battletech Center closed!
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

I got a bit of insiders info...The Battle Tech center in Chicago will
be closed starting today..they are moving to a different
facility..and will be OUT OF ORDER!! until sometime after GenCon!!!
DREK!!! I was really looking forward to going again..they have the
new Alpha pods..they let you reroute coolant and power..FRAG!! Oh
well..I just thought I would pass this along...
--------------------------------GRANITE
"Rock Steady"
===============================================
Lord, Grant Me The Serenity To Accept The Things I Cannot Change,
The Courage To Change The Things I Can,
And The Wisdom To Hide The Bodies Of Those People I Had To Kill
Because They Pissed Me Off.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ShadowRunner's Serenity Prayer
===============================================
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 10:09:04 -0700
Reply-To: granite@**.net
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <granite@**.net>
From: GRANITE <granite@**.NET>
Organization: Granite Forge Productions
Subject: [GC] Re: Gen Con, Guest list :) UPDATED 26JULY:1005L
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

>GRANITE, you still mantain this list?

Yup..Or at least I am trying to...

--------------------------------------------------------
Nice people going to GenCon:

FASAMike [If there are enough hours in the day]
GRANITE
Mike Broadwater
Bull
Fro (maybe)
Skye (yes... parents approval pending)
The Bookworm
Gossamer
Mike Paff
Caric
Court Schuett
Adam (another one or Fro?)
Nick Van
Droopy
Czar Eggbert
Paolo & Armanda (my gf)
Loki
NightLife
Onyx
Smilin' Ted
The Digital Mage aka Grant Erswell
Steve K.
--------------------------------------------------------

>Paolo & Armanda (my gf)

So will she be wearing one of those chain mail Bikinis??

From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>

>Does <sob>
>Does this mean, I'll be all alone??? <sob>
><SOB>

Well.. not completely.. and who is this Sob guy your talking to???

From: Skye Comstock <bilbo@****.NWLINK.COM>

>No Money, No Go. I'd drive my '7 there, but it'd take forever
>and I'd have to steal gas... ;)

Sad to hear it....
--------------------------------GRANITE
"Rock Steady"
===============================================
Lord, Grant Me The Serenity To Accept The Things I Cannot Change,
The Courage To Change The Things I Can,
And The Wisdom To Hide The Bodies Of Those People I Had To Kill
Because They Pissed Me Off.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ShadowRunner's Serenity Prayer
===============================================
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 10:09:02 -0700
Reply-To: granite@**.net
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <granite@**.net>
From: GRANITE <granite@**.NET>
Organization: Granite Forge Productions
Subject: I'm Back..For now..
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Well that was a bit less painful than I thought it was a going to
be..I waded through the email for the last week or so..I really don't
like the Digest version..Too easy to miss stuff..And I finally got a
copy od Target:UCAS..I had to drive all the way to Texas to get
it..But it is mine now... :) Next trip is off the GenCon...
Now I have to try and figure out how to turn off the Digest see ya'll
later...
--------------------------------GRANITE
"Rock Steady"
===============================================
Lord, Grant Me The Serenity To Accept The Things I Cannot Change,
The Courage To Change The Things I Can,
And The Wisdom To Hide The Bodies Of Those People I Had To Kill
Because They Pissed Me Off.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ShadowRunner's Serenity Prayer
===============================================
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 10:09:00 -0700
Reply-To: granite@**.net
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <granite@**.net>
From: GRANITE <granite@**.NET>
Organization: Granite Forge Productions
Subject: Argh!!!
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

>I hate you all!

But some of us had nothing to do with all of that....

>I'm turning into a fragging WENDIGO and it's ALL YOUR FAULT!
>Argh!!!!!!!!!!

My condolances..But think of the bright side..now you'll be really
strong..huge and furry.....Your diet might change a little..but
you'll have fangs...of course..you'll need a new truck..that old one
will be too small now... :P
--------------------------------GRANITE
"Rock Steady"
===============================================
Lord, Grant Me The Serenity To Accept The Things I Cannot Change,
The Courage To Change The Things I Can,
And The Wisdom To Hide The Bodies Of Those People I Had To Kill
Because They Pissed Me Off.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ShadowRunner's Serenity Prayer
===============================================
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 12:28:37 EDT
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: The Chromium Mage (was: [SR3] Geasa)

On Sun, 27 Jul 1997 14:31:57 +1000 Chris Maxfield <cmaxfiel@****.ORG.AU>
writes:

<<And now for the down side. All the following actions/abilities are
rated against a magician's magic rating and are only considered in that
light. I've listed those for which I believe the Chrome Wiz's geasa will
not work or are simply not relevant:

a. the Chrome Wiz's ability to banish spirits is very poor;>>


As it should be, since he's not actually a mage.


<<b. the Chrome Wiz's ability to command uncontrolled spirits is very
poor;>>


Again, he's not a mage, I'm sure he would be able to either of those,
anyway.


<<c. ritual magic maximum sustaining time is frag all if the Chrome Wiz
is the team leader;
d. the astrally projecting Chrome Wiz's ability to pass astral barriers
is almost non-existent;>>


He can't astrally project, he has astral perception, but astral
projection. And it's not like he'd be able to spend much time in the
astral even if he could project...


<<e. an initiated Chrome Wiz's Masking is pretty ineffective versus any
other initiate;>>


That's be the price you pay...


<<f. the Chrome Wiz's aura reading ability is poor;>>


Well, other than not having the Psychometry skill, where are you pulling
this one from?


<<g. astral quests are much more dangerous;>>


He can't astrally project.


<<h. the Chrome Wiz's risk of foci addiction is serious if he ever uses
the foci without also using his geasa.>>


Yes and no. He can't actually lose anymore magic, so the worst that could
happen is another geas (note: I would give this kind of character the
Focus geas on general principles:)


<<... and there are probably more.

So, there are still some solid limitations on the Chrome Wiz under the
proposed new geasa rules.>>


Of course there are, but two-thirds of what you suggest don't apply to
this character anyway: he can't astrally project, he can't summon
(normal) spirits, or banish them (IIRC, I don't have the book with me to
check, so I could very easily be wrong there...). And he doesn't have
Conjuring:)


--
-Canthros
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud
and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
--Francis Bacon
http://members.aol.com/canthros1
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 12:28:37 EDT
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Insecticides vs. repellents

On Sun, 27 Jul 1997 08:38:48 -0500 John Dukes <dukes@*******.NET> writes:
<<I wonder what the price of a can of bug repellant was during the height
of the Chicago infestation. I bet a tube of Off was worth its weight in
gold. I dont have the Bug City book, but just out of curiosity, does it
list Chicago prices for things like that?>>


Yes and no. It does have list indicating prices on lots of different
stuff, but neither bug repellant or insecticide are actually listed
(though they could fall under "Compounds") As for repellant: I doubt
that'd be too useful. My guess is that the bugs would just kill you and
leave you to rot instead of using you for the next generation of insect
spirits. . . Besides, I haven't seen a bug repellant that really works
100% and I'd expect the Invae to be a little less worried about it than a
normal bug would be...


--
-Canthros
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud
and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
--Francis Bacon
http://members.aol.com/canthros1
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 13:52:18 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: "Adam J. Lyle" <wolfjack@****.BCL.NET>
Subject: Re: [GC] Re: Gen Con, Guest list :) UPDATED 26JULY:1005L
In-Reply-To: <19970727161235718.AAJ404@********.gj.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sun, 27 Jul 1997, GRANITE wrote:

> >GRANITE, you still mantain this list?
>
> Yup..Or at least I am trying to...
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Nice people going to GenCon:
>
>
<snippage of names>

Don't forget Bob Ooton, aka TopCat, and me, even though I am new to
this list and have posted just one reply. You can find Mike Broadwater,
Bob, and myself, along with various others, at the White Wolf booth
demoing games most of the time. We'll be covering everything from basic
Vampire: the Masquerade to Changeling 2nd Ed, incase any of you die hard
runners ant something different.

Adam
WolfJack


.
o .
Beware the woods at night. ooo o
Beware the Lunar light. . oo ooo
o oo .
- Type-O Negative ooo o
oo wWwWw ooo
wWwwwwwWw oo
wwwwwwwwwww
wwwwwwwwwwwww
wwww www
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 13:39:21 -0700
Reply-To: granite@**.net
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <granite@**.net>
From: GRANITE <granite@**.NET>
Organization: Granite Forge Productions
Subject: [GC] Gen Con, Guest list :) UPDATED 26JULY:1332L
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

> > With the current additions Here are who is interested..
> > FASAMike [If there are enough hours in the day]
> > GRANITE
> > Mike Broadwater
> > Bull
> > Fro (maybe)
> > The Bookworm
> > Gossamer
> > Mike Paff
> > Caric
> > Court Schuett
> > Adam
> > Nick Van
> > Droopy
> > Czar Eggbert
> > Paolo & lady friend..
> >Loki
> >NightLife
> >Onyx
> >Smilin' Ted
> The Digital Mage aka Grant Erswell
> Steve K.
Bob Ooton aka TopCat,
Adam aka WolfJack

--------------------------------GRANITE
"Rock Steady"
===============================================
Lord, Grant Me The Serenity To Accept The Things I Cannot Change,
The Courage To Change The Things I Can,
And The Wisdom To Hide The Bodies Of Those People I Had To Kill
Because They Pissed Me Off.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ShadowRunner's Serenity Prayer
===============================================
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 21:17:29 EDT
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Tim Cooper <z-i-m@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Chargen

On Wed, 23 Jul 1997 05:08:02 -0500 John Dukes <dukes@*******.NET> writes:

[snip]

>Is it balanced if RunnerX is immune to narcoject toxin in exchange for a
>mild phobia of hearing a trains whistle? I guess that +1TN modifier
while
>hearing a train whistly is worth complete immunity to narcoject? At any
rate
>please show me I'm wrong. I would rather like to read the cleverly
hidden
>section on balancing magical talents.

Well that's just Edges/Flaws in general.... stuff like that happens in
just about ANY system that uses them. Which just so happens to be one of
the major reasons I don't like to use them... I as a GM don't like having
to check the ones the players may pile on, and don't want to become a
tyrant by saying which one's can and can't be used. It becomes a pain
when we use the same characters for mulitple GM's and we each have
different views about them. IMHO, the less of them the better.

~Tim
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 21:59:58 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: "Adam J. Lyle" <wolfjack@****.BCL.NET>
Subject: Re: [GC] Gen Con, Guest list :) UPDATED 26JULY:1332L
Comments: To: GRANITE <granite@**.NET>
In-Reply-To: <19970727194254171.AAA351@********.gj.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Thanks, I feel all special now. ;)

Adam Lyle (just incase there are two Adams here)
WolfJack



.
o .
Beware the woods at night. ooo o
Beware the Lunar light. . oo ooo
o oo .
- Type-O Negative ooo o
oo wWwWw ooo
wWwwwwwWw oo
wwwwwwwwwww
wwwwwwwwwwwww
wwww www
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 20:33:44 -0800
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Skye Comstock <bilbo@****.NWLINK.COM>
Subject: Re: [GC] Gen Con, Guest list :) UPDATED 26JULY:1332L
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9707272109.A11253-0100000@****.bcl.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

> Thanks, I feel all special now. ;)
>
>Adam Lyle (just incase there are two Adams here)
>WolfJack

There are a lot of Adams here... The list co-admin (who I fear may
haome kind of breakdown due to all of the Adams...), Adam Wise, and
one or two others with Adam as a first or last name... Adam and a
J somewhere because pretty damned popular. ;)

-Skye
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 23:47:01 -0400
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Ian White <dernhelm@*****.COM.AU>
Subject: help
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Help me please????????????
I've newly joined the list and changed to the digest version, but have
decided that I prefer individual postings.
My problem is I don't know how to change back.
could someone please help me???

Dernhelm
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 00:14:10 -0400
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: [SR3] Astral Perception and Adepts
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Sorry I've been busy elsewhere but here I am with another of those
fun topics to argue about. Passing over Edges and Flaws (being that they
are optional) and the PhysAd power, can any adept astrally perceive. What
has gone before in the rules suggests this on some level for the
spellcasting wizzies but not how much can perceive. Could this get better
fleshed out by what that means. And a few spells seem to compensate for
no astral perception but not quite fully. I think it would be useful to
do so.


<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 21:14:01 -0700
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Loki <daddyjim@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: help
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

---Ian White wrote:
>
> Help me please????????????
> I've newly joined the list and changed to the digest version, but
have
> decided that I prefer individual postings.
> My problem is I don't know how to change back.
> could someone please help me???

Adam has copies of the FAQ are at:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/6112/lists.html

Quoting part 1 of the FAQ:

SET listname DIGEST:
When this option is set, instead of all of the
postings being delivered separately, they will be
delivered in one mailing at the close of the day (in
Listserv's timezone). This is helpful if the number
of mailings become a burden.

SET listname MAIL (default):
This option is invoked to restore active status
after sending a NOMAIL request, and is also used to
change from DIGEST back to getting all postings
separately.

Hope that helps, and I'd advise grabbing and saving all parts of the
FAQ (not to mention Adam sent copies of them out just a few days ago).

===
@>--,--'--- Loki <gamemstr@********.com>

Poisoned Elves: www.primenet.com/~gamemstr/

"You're being held up by a stim patch, Loki's almost a pile of ashes
thanks to that fire elemental, and we've got the Baron running around
screaming assassins...assassins...oh eek, assassins!"
--> Caric to Ook during the Harlequin Campaign
_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 00:27:28 -0400
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Ian White <dernhelm@*****.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: help
In-Reply-To: <tcppop3.382647@***.hydra.com.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Thank you for the fast respones to my need for help, it is greatly
appreciated. :)
once again thank you.

Dernhelm


Caught and trapped like a fox in the forest
Or a murderer in prison.
Yet what crime had I committed?
To be human in this world?
-excerpt from "Your favourite Drama"
by E. A. Bockman
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 00:50:48 EDT
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Astral Perception and Adepts

On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 00:14:10 -0400 MC23 <mc23@**********.COM> writes:
<<Sorry I've been busy elsewhere but here I am with another of those fun
topics to argue about.>>


Oh, boy! Something to bring up the list traffic (since it's been a slow
weekend:)


<<Passing over Edges and Flaws (being that they are optional) and the
PhysAd power, can any adept astrally perceive.>>


Only Astral Adepts, Elementalists, Shamanic Adepts (there's _got_ to be a
better name for them), and Physads (who don't necessarily) have full
access to astral perception.


<<What has gone before in the rules suggests this on some level for the
spellcasting wizzies but not how much can perceive.>>


It is implied that Sorcerors have a *limited* form of astral perception,
which may, in fact, be no more than the limited astral sense that *all*
magically active characters probably possess (as implied by the story
"All Dressed Up and No Place to Go", Awakenings, p25). In any case, any
astral perception that a sorceror might possess is only enough to synch
auras (might have a side-effect of providing heightened emotional
awareness, both of a given subject and of the surrounding area), and has
little or no use outside of that. Whether any other adept has such an
ability has yet to be seen:)


<<Could this get better fleshed out by what that means. And a few spells
seem to compensate for no astral perception but not quite fully. I think
it would be useful to do so.>>


To which spells are you referring?


--
-Canthros
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud
and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
--Francis Bacon
http://members.aol.com/canthros1
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 01:35:20 -0400
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Justin Pinnow <vanyel@*******.NET>
Subject: Gel rounds and knockdown rules
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Could someone please fill me in on the appropriate modifiers for
knockdown/back power levels for gel rounds? The BBB makes reference to a
nonexistant section within itself that is supposed to give the details on
this. :)

Thanks!

Justin :)
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 01:52:14 -0400
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Ian White <dernhelm@*****.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Gel rounds and knockdown rules
In-Reply-To: <tcppop3.382675@***.hydra.com.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 15:39 27/07/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Could someone please fill me in on the appropriate modifiers for
>knockdown/back power levels for gel rounds? The BBB makes reference to a
>nonexistant section within itself that is supposed to give the details on
>this. :)
>
>Thanks!
>
>Justin :)


See page 91 of the Shadowrun rule book, down on the bottom right there is a
paragraph titled 'stopping and Nockdown".
in it you'll find the rules for gel rounds are: "gel rounds have a base
target number equal to their power"

dernhelm


Caught and trapped like a fox in the forest
Or a murderer in prison.
Yet what crime had I committed?
To be human in this world?
-excerpt from "Your favourite Drama"
by E. A. Bockman
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:26:10 +0200
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Bruce <gyro@********.CO.ZA>
Subject: Physical Mages (was Re: Physad Enhanced Centering)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 05:26 PM 24-07-97 -0400, you (J. Keith) wrote:

>>
>> Except that a physad can't enchant, and can't use most magical skills
>> except for mundane effects (which is to say, in the same way(s) a mundane
>> could use them).
>>
>>
>True, but a Physical Mage can, and these rules apply to them as well. Also,
>a Physical Adept -CAN- enchant, even a mundane can make fetishes. As such,
>the skills could go in that direction as well.
>-Keith

I'd like someone to check me here please.
The phenomenon of physical magicians is supposed to be unproven and a little
unbelieved according to the source material, right? I dont have the paper
work so I 'll leave the page quotes to the gurus. Just how many GM's are
allowing their players to play this IMHO marginal and unnesassary (sp?
oooooh!) archetype?

It smacks of "best of both worlding"

Thanks
BRUCE
Arcanum Majoris - Big Magic! :)
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 13:08:03 +0000
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <dhinkley@********.efn.org>
From: David Hinkley <dhinkley@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Playing Multiple Charactrs (was Re: question)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.16.19970721044617.2ec78378@*****.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

On 21 Jul 97 at 4:44, Bull wrote:

> At 03:26 AM 7/20/97 -0600, Caun Haskins wrote these timeless words:
>
> >Here's a question I want to through out, Do you PCs play multiple
> >characters? or just one? I was in a small group once and each person
> >played at leas 2 sometimes up to 6 players, I think It got confusing
> >real quick. What do you guys think and or do?
> >
> Well... I've never done it with Shadowrun, though I would let (if we were
> ever short of players) my guys play up to 2 characters, max... Of course,
> I _LIKE_ a small group (my ideal group is 4, one from each major group).
>
> Of course, I never really have a shortage of players. I have too many,
> ocaasionally... Of course, if we're talking GOOD players... that's
> another subject. I have maybe 2 or 3...;]

The group I currently game with is rather small (2-3 plus GM), to
have enough PCs to make some runs possible we each play two
characters, basicly a primary and a secondary. If the gaming group is
larger at any particular session (new player, visting friends from
far away etc.) only the primary is run. Addtionally the secondary
characters are used in support type roles (get away car driver,
research decker, look out) and is never teamed with the same players
primary. It is not a great solution (there is the ever present "group
mind" problem) but it works.


David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org

====================================================
Those who are too intelligent to engage in politics
are punished by being governed by those who are not
--Plato
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 12:34:50 +0100
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <gurth@******.nl>
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Organization: Plastic Warriors
Subject: Re: Gel rounds and knockdown rules
In-Reply-To: <199707280537.BAA15017@****.provide.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Justin Pinnow said on 1:35/28 Jul 97...

> Could someone please fill me in on the appropriate modifiers for
> knockdown/back power levels for gel rounds? The BBB makes reference to a
> nonexistant section within itself that is supposed to give the details on
> this. :)

That reference should read "earlier in this section," or better "on page
91." Normal rounds use half their Power as the TN for the knockdown test,
but to resist knockdown from gel rounds the full Power Level is used.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
And you can try and you just might...
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 12:34:49 +0100
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <gurth@******.nl>
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Organization: Plastic Warriors
Subject: Re: [GC] Gen Con, Guest list :) UPDATED 26JULY:1332L
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9707272109.A11253-0100000@****.bcl.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Adam J. Lyle said on 21:59/27 Jul 97...

> Adam Lyle (just incase there are two Adams here)

There are, and the J in your name makes it especially confusing, seeing
how Adam J (who should change his name back to Fro, it would make it
easier for all involved :) is Assistant Fearless Leader...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
And you can try and you just might...
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 08:57:52 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: "Wendy Wanders, Subject 117"
<KGGEWEHR@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Astral Perception and Adepts
In-Reply-To: "Your message dated Mon, 28 Jul 1997 00:14:10 -0400"
<199707280414.AAA04196@*********.mindspring.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

You wrote:
> Sorry I've been busy elsewhere but here I am with another of those
> fun topics to argue about. Passing over Edges and Flaws (being that they
> are optional) and the PhysAd power, can any adept astrally perceive. What
> has gone before in the rules suggests this on some level for the
> spellcasting wizzies but not how much can perceive. Could this get better
> fleshed out by what that means. And a few spells seem to compensate for
> no astral perception but not quite fully. I think it would be useful to
> do so.

I think Elemental Adepts and Shamanic Adepts are the only ones with full astral
perception/projection abilities (well, and the Astral Adept, of course).
Generally adepts are banned from both assensing and projecting.

losthalo
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:17:07 -0400
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: "Jackson, Hank" <Hank.Jackson@*********.COM>
Subject: Rhenium polymers
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----
=_NextPart_001_01BC9B37.067DB720"

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------ =_NextPart_001_01BC9B37.067DB720
Content-Type: text/plain

Hello all,

I thought of an unusual use for Rhenium polymers. If they were coated
on cybereyes, they would eliminate the need for corneal filters. Some
of the NPC's described in Prime Runners have their cybereyes listed as a
distingiushing feature. Colorchanging cybereyes would help those for
whom disguise to a common occurance. There are a few problems with
coated cybereyes:

1. Can the polymers withstand the bodily fluids in and around the eye
without degradation of the polymer fibers? Most polymers are fairly
stable in my experience, though I do not know the properties of these
particular polmers.

2. Will the low voltage current required to change the color of the
fibers interfere with the functioning of the cybereye? This is one
that I have no idea about.

3. Are the polymers dangerous to the body? Will the chemical change
initiated by the voltage harm the eye cavity or the body as a whole? If
the polymers were inert, it would be no different than an uncoated
cybereye.

This may require a ruling from the GM for individual games, which may
not have much relation to reality (reality, what's that?).

Can anyone give me more info about this very useful piece of equipment?

Galen

------ =_NextPart_001_01BC9B37.067DB720
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; =
charset=us-ascii">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version =
5.0.1457.3">

</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Hello all,</FONT>
<BR>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I thought of an unusual use
for =
Rhenium polymers.&nbsp; If they were coated on cybereyes, they would =
eliminate the need for corneal filters.&nbsp; Some of the NPC's =
described in Prime Runners have their cybereyes listed as a =
distingiushing feature.&nbsp; Colorchanging cybereyes would help those =
for whom disguise to a common occurance.&nbsp; There are a few&nbsp; =
problems with coated cybereyes:</FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">1. Can the polymers withstand
the =
bodily fluids in and around the eye without degradation of the polymer =
fibers?&nbsp; Most polymers are fairly stable in my experience, though =
I do not know the properties of these particular polmers.</FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">2. Will the low voltage
current =
required to change the color of the fibers interfere with the =
functioning of the cybereye?&nbsp;&nbsp; This is one that I have no =
idea about.</FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">3. Are the polymers dangerous
to the =
body?&nbsp; Will the chemical change initiated by the voltage harm the =
eye cavity or the body as a whole?&nbsp; If the polymers were inert, it =
would be no different than an uncoated cybereye.</FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">This may require a ruling
from the GM =
for individual games, which may not have much relation to reality =
(reality, what's that?).</FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Can anyone give me more info
about =
this very useful piece of equipment?</FONT>
<BR>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Galen</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------ =_NextPart_001_01BC9B37.067DB720--
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:27:45 -0400
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Astral Perception and Adepts
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Canthros once dared to write,

>Oh, boy! Something to bring up the list traffic (since it's been a slow
>weekend:)

Everybody's got to have a talent.

>Only Astral Adepts, Elementalists, Shamanic Adepts (there's _got_ to be a
>better name for them), and Physads (who don't necessarily) have full
>access to astral perception.

That's what I get for posting just before passing out. What I was
roundaboutly trying to get to was sorcerer adepts (and anything else that
should be considered).

>It is implied that Sorcerers have a *limited* form of astral perception,
>which may, in fact, be no more than the limited astral sense that *all*
>magically active characters probably possess (as implied by the story
>"All Dressed Up and No Place to Go", Awakenings, p25). In any case, any
>astral perception that a sorcerer might possess is only enough to synch
>auras (might have a side-effect of providing heightened emotional
>awareness, both of a given subject and of the surrounding area), and has
>little or no use outside of that. Whether any other adept has such an
>ability has yet to be seen:)

That is exactly what I was trying to hit upon. It is implied but not
defined so to speak.

><<Could this get better fleshed out by what that means. And a few spells
>seem to compensate for no astral perception but not quite fully. I think
>it would be useful to do so.>>
>
>
>To which spells are you referring?
Analyze Magic (Grimoire)
Detect Magic (Grimoire)
Astral Sense (Awakenings)
My burnt out sorcerer adept makes use of these to compensate for not
having Astral Perception. They don't do everything but they give some
astral perception to him.
Earthdawn covers some of the differences in the levels of astral
perception (Magic: a Manual of Mystic Secrets) and Shadowrun could use a
little of the same treatment for the Sorcerer Adepts and Physical
Magicians.


<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 08:48:22 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Gossamer <kajohnson@*******.TEC.WI.US>
Subject: Re: Rhenium polymers
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

----------
> From: Jackson, Hank <Hank.Jackson@*********.COM>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Rhenium polymers
> Date: Monday, July 28, 1997 8:17 AM
>

I'm absolutely sure that there was probably more to this message, and I'd like
to respond point by point:

Point 1)

Point 2)

Point 3)

and finally...

Point 4)



Cheers

Gossamer
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:52:08 -0400
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: "M. Sean Martinez" <ElBandit@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rhenium polymers

I disagree on point 3....

-Bandit
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 10:08:00 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: "Wendy Wanders, Subject 117"
<KGGEWEHR@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject: Re: Physical Mages (was Re: Physad Enhanced Centering)
In-Reply-To: "Your message dated Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:26:10 +0200"
<1.5.4.32.19970728072610.0068ccac@********.co.za>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

You wrote:
> I'd like someone to check me here please.
> The phenomenon of physical magicians is supposed to be unproven and a little
> unbelieved according to the source material, right? I dont have the paper
> work so I 'll leave the page quotes to the gurus. Just how many GM's are
> allowing their players to play this IMHO marginal and unnecessary archetype?
Was the physad 'necessary' in the first place? Not in my opinion. It was a
way to be a magical samurai when first introduced. I think the physical
magician could be a very interesting character type, and isn't as subject to
munching as people may think.

> It smacks of "best of both worlding"
Yeah, but they're nowhere as good as either, they're middleground. And it
makes perfect sense to me that one could pursue both spellcasting/conjuring and
physadept powers in study. It's no different than the burned-out mages that
end up being basically samurai/mages.

losthalo
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 08:30:51 -0600
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: the uac dilemma
In-Reply-To: <199707270503.XAA26358@******> from "Chris Maxfield" at Jul
27,
97 02:47:16 pm
Content-Type: text

Chris Maxfield wrote:
|
| At 09:42 25/07/97 -0600, David Buehrer wrote:
| >Refresh everyone's pools at the beginning of combat. From that point
| >on the characters' pools refresh at the *end* of their action
| >phases.
| <<<snip>>>
|
| Yep. I saw this the first time you posted but somehow I lost it. I've just
| replied, privately, to Mark Steedman discussing the points he made in his
| last post. As I said to Mark I feel this problem of the initiative loser
| refreshing his combat pool to soon is a conundrum. Or - I thought it was
| until I just discussed your suggestion with a friend. I like your idea.

Well, that's one :)

| A question, though I think you mentioned it in your first post. Do you have
| this refreshing take place in all SR combat eg. ranged, DM spells, etc...
| and do you have all pools refreshing this way eg. magic, control, hacking,
| etc... ?

I would suggest applying it to all pools.

BTW, this is an idea in the playtest stage. Send the PCs to a
paintball competition and try it out under non-lethal conditions
before you use it for real.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 10:45:47 EDT
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Physad Enhanced Centering)

On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:26:10 +0200 Bruce <gyro@********.CO.ZA> writes:


>I'd like someone to check me here please.


<shrug> Okay. Check! :)


<<The phenomenon of physical magicians is supposed to be unproven and a
little unbelieved according to the source material, right?>>


True enough.


<<I dont have the paper work so I 'll leave the page quotes to the gurus.
Just how many GM's are allowing their players to play this IMHO marginal
and unnesassary (sp? oooooh!) archetype?>>


Well, I certainly do, but you should see the other stuff I'll let my
players have, if they ask for it:) The honest truth is that a Phys. Mage
*isn't* that powerful. He's versatile, he's rare, but he's not a combat
monster, not automatically. The Physical Mage is really pretty well
balanced. "Jack of all trades, Master of none", you know.


>It smacks of "best of both worlding"


Maybe so, but they remain pretty well balanced and can be used to create
some really interesting characters (one I toyed with was a rocker),
because you can do stuff with them that's not possible with any other
type of character. Conversely, they'll never be able to astrally project,
they'll never be able to go on an astral quest (on their own), etc, etc.


> Arcanum Majoris - Big Magic! :)



--
-Canthros
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud
and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
--Francis Bacon
http://members.aol.com/canthros1
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 10:45:47 EDT
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rhenium polymers

On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:17:07 -0400 "Jackson, Hank"
<Hank.Jackson@*********.COM> writes:
>This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not
>understand
>this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.


Galen, you're sending out MIME. Please fix your mailer so it isn't. It'll
save you having to listen to Spike scream and yell:) Besides, I don't
think everyone's mailer is MIME-compatible (or MIME-ignorant, like mine:)


>Hello all,
>
>I thought of an unusual use for Rhenium polymers. If they were coated
>on cybereyes, they would eliminate the need for corneal filters. Some
>of the NPC's described in Prime Runners have their cybereyes listed as
>a
>distingiushing feature. Colorchanging cybereyes would help those for
>whom disguise to a common occurance. There are a few problems with
>coated cybereyes:


An interesting idea (btw, they're Ruthenium fibers, not Rhenium:)


>1. Can the polymers withstand the bodily fluids in and around the eye
>without degradation of the polymer fibers? Most polymers are fairly
>stable in my experience, though I do not know the properties of these
>particular polmers.


Would it matter? You simply put them in the 'iris' in the cybereyes and
they never come in contact with a person's bodily fluids (or when they do
you'll be needing new cybereyes, anyway)


>2. Will the low voltage current required to change the color of the
>fibers interfere with the functioning of the cybereye? This is one
>that I have no idea about.


It could, but I don't think it would. Not unless (small) magnetic fields
and low voltage current on/in a person's body (ala the battery pack for
that cyberradio) would already interfere with their operation.


>3. Are the polymers dangerous to the body? Will the chemical change
>initiated by the voltage harm the eye cavity or the body as a whole?
>If
>the polymers were inert, it would be no different than an uncoated
>cybereye.


As I said, it would be easier to enclose the polymers witin the cybereye,
where they'd be protected from the elements and the body.


>This may require a ruling from the GM for individual games, which may
>not have much relation to reality (reality, what's that?).
>
>Can anyone give me more info about this very useful piece of
>equipment?


I hope I helped, at least a little bit. Do we have a chemist on the list,
somewhere?


--
-Canthros
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud
and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
--Francis Bacon
http://members.aol.com/canthros1
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:51:28 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: "Robert G. Brook" <rgb1@**.MSSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Area Spells
In-Reply-To: <s3d87de1.024@********.dragonsys.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Mike Elkins wrote:

> Steve Kenson wrote:
> >2) A valid target is one which the caster: a) can
> >see or assense, unaided by technology and,
>
> Point of clarification, please: what about targets
> who are under the effects of invisibility, using
> stealth, a spirit's concealment power etc? The
> casting mage COULD see them if he rolls high
> enough on his perception roll, but what if he
> doesn't even bother to look? In other words,
> does the mage have to "see" them, or "notice"
> them?
>
> Double-Domed Mike
>

I believe Steve was intending to require the mage to percieve the target.
This would imply that the mage would have to "notice" the target.
Furthermore, Steve stated that the mage had to share a state (physical or
astral) with the target. This would only allow a mage using normal sight
to target any physical targets he percieves. Similarly, an astrally
projecting mage would only be able to target any astral targets he
percieves. Finally, an astrally perceiving mage would be able to target
both physical and astral targets but would be subject to a +2 TN
(associated with the attempt to make a physical action while astrally
perceiving) when targeting physical targets.

NOTE: The above is my understanding of Steve's ideas. If this
interpretation is in any way incorrect, please correct me, Steve.

Thanks.

-Glenn Brook
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:54:55 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Mike Elkins <MikeE@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Area Spells

David Lowe wrote:
>Ooops. Just reread the BBB. P 145
> "transparent objects retain that quality..."

Yes, thats in the rules. However, having glass be
opaque in the astral makes things so much more
consistent that I use it as a house rule. I suggest
(without much hope) that Steve considers it for
SR3 as well. After all, what wavelength of light
does astral space use to determine if something
is transparent? Do you allow astral
microscopes? Things just get silly.

Double-Domed Mike
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:58:01 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Mike Elkins <MikeE@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Area Spells -Reply

Fade wrote:
>I seem to remember reading that since the
>basic nature of glass is transparency (it's its
>intention, mood, whatever) it is transparent in
>astral space too.

Yes, that's the rules. However, ordinary glass is
opaque to infrared, but quartz glass is
transparent. To X-Rays, wood is transparent.
To Neutrinos, the earth is transparent (Ok, that
last one is unfair, neutrinos aren't photons).
IMHO, machine produced glass doesn't have any
intentions at all.

Double-Domed Mike
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 10:09:02 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Mike Elkins <MikeE@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Area Spells

Replying to Steve Kenson's clarifications:

This brings up an interesting question: if I cast
invisibility, and only get one success, am I
invisible, or just a little blury at the edges? What
TN modifier is the boundary between visible but
hard to target and requires a perception test? If
a character is not spending actions perceiving,
he doesn't make perception tests, (including the
GM makeing hidden, subconscious ones on his
behalf), which makes the issue a bit tricky, I'd
say.

Double-Domed Mike
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 10:19:56 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Mike Elkins <MikeE@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: the uac dilemma (minor insect spirit spoilers!)

>Dieldrin, for instance, is almost as toxic to
>humans as it is to insects.

There are insecticides that are completely
non-toxic to mammals, but they do that by being
specific to things like preventing the pupae stage
of developement..., not fast acting, and wont
harm an adult bug. Not the most useful stuff for
a bug hunt, but spraying it around the cocoon
room would force them to move out and build a
new hive (IMHO).
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 00:50:41 +1000
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Chris Maxfield <cmaxfiel@****.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: The Chromium Mage (was: [SR3] Geasa)
In-Reply-To: <19970727.122712.18311.0.lobo1@****.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 12:28 27/07/97 EDT, John E Pederson wrote:
<<a. the Chrome Wiz's ability to banish spirits is very poor;>>

>As it should be, since he's not actually a mage.

Oops. Just reread the fragment I still have of the original Chromium Mage
post. Somehow, I completely missed the fact that he is a Sorcerous Adept.

><<b. the Chrome Wiz's ability to command uncontrolled spirits is very
>poor;>>

>Again, he's not a mage, I'm sure he would be able to either of those,
>anyway.

<Blush>. What I was referring to here was the Control contest where the
spirit is opposing by rolling its force versus the magician's Magic Rating.
Could get nasty for low Magic Ratings. But, not an issue for Sorcerous Adepts.

><<c. ritual magic maximum sustaining time is frag all if the Chrome Wiz
>is the team leader;
>d. the astrally projecting Chrome Wiz's ability to pass astral barriers
>is almost non-existent;>>

>He can't astrally project, he has astral perception, but astral
>projection. And it's not like he'd be able to spend much time in the
>astral even if he could project...

<Double blush>. Does he have astral perception? (Wishing he still had the
original post.)

><<e. an initiated Chrome Wiz's Masking is pretty ineffective versus any
>other initiate;>>
>That's be the price you pay...

Thank god. That one got through.

><<f. the Chrome Wiz's aura reading ability is poor;>>
>Well, other than not having the Psychometry skill, where are you pulling
>this one from?

Well, this doesn't necessarily apply to Sorcerous Adepts (unless they have
astral perception). I also should have used the word 'reduced' rather than
'poor'. I'm referring to the Aura Reading section on page 90 in the
Grimiore. There it describes how a magician may make multiple attempts to
read an aura but the target number increases by +2 each time. He may not
make anymore attempts once the target number exceeds his Magic Rating. This
will, almost certainly, occur immediately after the Chrome Wiz's first
attempt. Also, an Initiated Spell Wiz will have a tough time penetrating
the Masking of other initiates. Once again, this only applies to Chromium
Mages who have (somehow) gained perception <blush>.

><<g. astral quests are much more dangerous;>>
>He can't astrally project.

Certainly not through his own power. But there are ways, such as the Free
Spirit's gateway power, to bring any character into an astral quest. If he
ends up in the place of magic he may be in serious trouble.

><<h. the Chrome Wiz's risk of foci addiction is serious if he ever uses
>the foci without also using his geasa.>>
>Yes and no. He can't actually lose anymore magic, so the worst that could
>happen is another geas (note: I would give this kind of character the
>Focus geas on general principles:)

Absolutely agree.

>Of course there are, but two-thirds of what you suggest don't apply to
>this character anyway: he can't astrally project, he can't summon
>(normal) spirits, or banish them (IIRC, I don't have the book with me to
>check, so I could very easily be wrong there...). And he doesn't have
>Conjuring:)

<blush> <double blush> Quietly tucks the old Magic Ratings list away. OK.
The disadvantages suffered by the Chrome Wiz for his low Magic Rating are
much reduced compared to a full magician. But what is left leaves
interestin' hooks for a GM to play with. ;-)

Chris

_______________________________________________________________
Chris Maxfield We are restless because of incessant
<cmaxfiel@****.org.au> change, but we would be frightened if
Canberra, Australia change were stopped.
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:05:45 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Mike Elkins <MikeE@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Area Spells

Here's another "thought experiment":

A magician casts a physical area-of-effect spell
at a point in the middle of a wheat field. Does it
only effect the wheat stalks towards the front that
he can see well, does it effect a nice neat circle
in the crop, or does it effect a few dozen or so
stalks that happen to be the ones his mind
"noticed"? Substitute a crowd in a passing
subway car if you think a field of wheat is too
boring...

Double-Domed Mike
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:37:45 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: "Wendy Wanders, Subject 117"
<KGGEWEHR@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Area Spells -Reply
In-Reply-To: "Your message dated Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:58:01 -0500"
<s3dc7b06.087@********.dragonsys.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

You wrote:
> Fade wrote:
> >I seem to remember reading that since the
> >basic nature of glass is transparency (it's its
> >intention, mood, whatever) it is transparent in
> >astral space too.

> Yes, that's the rules. However, ordinary glass is
> opaque to infrared, but quartz glass is
> transparent. To X-Rays, wood is transparent.
> To Neutrinos, the earth is transparent (Ok, that
> last one is unfair, neutrinos aren't photons).
> IMHO, machine produced glass doesn't have any
> intentions at all.

By this argument, why isn't air opaque, then? It's there, why shouldn't it
intervene, if glass does? It's so much simpler for things to work as they do
on the physical, rather than ruling case-by-case whether they are transparent
or not. Would a pool of water be transparent or opaque, for instance?

losthalo
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:39:26 EDT
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: The Chromium Mage (was: [SR3] Geasa)

<<Oops. Just reread the fragment I still have of the original Chromium
Mage post. Somehow, I completely missed the fact that he is a Sorcerous
Adept.>>

Don't sweat it.

<<<Double blush>. Does he have astral perception? (Wishing he still had
the original post.)>>


Yeah, he has Astral Perception via the Astral Sight Edge.


<<Well, this doesn't necessarily apply to Sorcerous Adepts (unless they
have astral perception). I also should have used the word 'reduced'
rather than 'poor'. I'm referring to the Aura Reading section on page 90
in the Grimiore. There it describes how a magician may make multiple
attempts to read an aura but the target number increases by +2 each time.
He may not make anymore attempts once the target number exceeds his Magic
Rating. This will, almost certainly, occur immediately after the Chrome
Wiz's first attempt. Also, an Initiated Spell Wiz will have a tough time
penetrating the Masking of other initiates. Once again, this only applies
to Chromium Mages who have (somehow) gained perception <blush>.>>


I don't know, unless the character intentionally does not use the geasa
when attempting this (or they do not apply or he's physically unable to
fulfill them), I'd let them apply to his magic rating (assuming we're in
a non-combat type of situation and he's not actually tossing spells).


><<g. astral quests are much more dangerous;>>
>He can't astrally project.

<<Certainly not through his own power. But there are ways, such as the
Free Spirit's gateway power, to bring any character into an astral quest.
If he ends up in the place of magic he may be in serious trouble.>>


Again, that's the price you pay.


<<The disadvantages suffered by the Chrome Wiz for his low Magic Rating
are
much reduced compared to a full magician. But what is left leaves
interestin' hooks for a GM to play with. ;-)>>


That would be the idea:)


--
-Canthros
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud
and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
--Francis Bacon
http://members.aol.com/canthros1
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:47:16 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: "Wendy Wanders, Subject 117"
<KGGEWEHR@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject: Re: Area Spells
In-Reply-To: "Your message dated Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:05:45 -0500"
<s3dc7d57.071@********.dragonsys.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

You wrote:
> Here's another "thought experiment":

> A magician casts a physical area-of-effect spell
> at a point in the middle of a wheat field. Does it
> only effect the wheat stalks towards the front that
> he can see well, does it effect a nice neat circle
> in the crop, or does it effect a few dozen or so
> stalks that happen to be the ones his mind
> "noticed"? Substitute a crowd in a passing
> subway car if you think a field of wheat is too
> boring...

Well, in a wheat field, you stand tall enough to see down over the stalks
further back, and would hit all but a few odd ones. The crowd of people, well,
you can't see them, a Combat spell can't hit them. Use a DM, if you want to
hit them around the 'cover' of the poor slags in front of them.

losthalo
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 12:15:16 EDT
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Tim Cooper <z-i-m@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rhenium polymers

On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:52:08 -0400 "M. Sean Martinez" <ElBandit@***.COM>
writes:
>I disagree on point 3....

Yes, but his arguments for point 4 more than make up for the
discrepancies in logic.

(Hey Hank.... DON'T send anything other than PLAIN TEXT to the list...
'k?
If you don't know why, read the FAQ.)

~Tim
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 10:40:15 -0600
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Area Spells -Reply
In-Reply-To: <199707281541.JAA01485@******> from "Wendy Wanders,
Subject 117" at Jul 28, 97 11:37:45 am
Content-Type: text

Wendy Wanders, Subject 117 wrote:
|
| By this argument, why isn't air opaque, then? It's there, why shouldn't it
| intervene, if glass does? It's so much simpler for things to work as they do
| on the physical, rather than ruling case-by-case whether they are transparent
| or not. Would a pool of water be transparent or opaque, for instance?

Actually, I like the idea of astral space being "foggy", with water
being a "pea soup fog" (depending on how pure the water is, distilled
water might be as clear as air). It creates a better reason for
using the range table in GII. It would give astral space a nice
eerie feel ("You see something coming at you in the distance. It
could be another mage out for a walk, it could be that elemental
that's been chasing you. What do you do?" <EGMG>)

| losthalo

So, which is it? Losthalo or Wendy? :)

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 10:45:14 -0600
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Area Spells
In-Reply-To: <199707281507.JAA27393@******> from "Mike Elkins" at Jul 28,
97 11:05:45 am
Content-Type: text

Mike Elkins wrote:
|
| Here's another "thought experiment":
|
| A magician casts a physical area-of-effect spell
| at a point in the middle of a wheat field. Does it
| only effect the wheat stalks towards the front that
| he can see well, does it effect a nice neat circle
| in the crop, or does it effect a few dozen or so
| stalks that happen to be the ones his mind
| "noticed"? Substitute a crowd in a passing
| subway car if you think a field of wheat is too
| boring...

Thanks Mike :p :)

I'm gonna say that the wheat that the magician can't see isn't
affected by the combat spell (ditto for the people in the crowd).

This is a rule that I've had to read a lot, cuz one of the players in
my game keeps trying to use Fireball to affect targets around corners
(We're playing SR, not AD$D! <sigh>). It doesn't matter what's
blocking your sight.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:56:55 -0800
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: david lowe <dlowe@****.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Area Spells -Reply
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 11:37 AM 7/28/97, Wendy Wanders, Subject 117 wrote:

>By this argument, why isn't air opaque, then? It's there, why shouldn't it
>intervene, if glass does? It's so much simpler for things to work as they do
>on the physical, rather than ruling case-by-case whether they are transparent
>or not. Would a pool of water be transparent or opaque, for instance?
>
>losthalo

I would say that distilled water, or reasonably polluted water would be
transparent, but that most other bodies of water would not only be opaque,
but would block astral movement. Most bodies of water are chock full of
life. Hmmm, FAB without all that hassle anyone?

D.

David R. Lowe (dlowe@****.com)
Photography/Graphic Design

"I can't help it, I'm a greedy slob. It's my hobby."
-Daffy Duck
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 12:57:05 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: "Wendy Wanders, Subject 117"
<KGGEWEHR@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Area Spells -Reply
In-Reply-To: "Your message dated Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:56:55 -0800"
<v01540b00b0028d456ec9@[140.174.162.168]>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

You wrote:
> At 11:37 AM 7/28/97, Wendy Wanders, Subject 117 wrote:
> I would say that distilled water, or reasonably polluted water would be
> transparent, but that most other bodies of water would not only be opaque,
> but would block astral movement. Most bodies of water are chock full of
> life. Hmmm, FAB without all that hassle anyone?
The *air* is full of life, too.

Losthalo
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 10:59:29 -0700
Reply-To: granite@**.net
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <granite@**.net>
From: GRANITE <granite@**.NET>
Organization: Granite Forge Productions
Subject: [GC] Gen Con, Guest list :) UPDATED 27JULY:1100L
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

> >> > With the current additions Here are who is interested..
> >> > FASAMike [If there are enough hours in the day]
> >> > GRANITE
> >> > Mike Broadwater
> >> > Bull
> >> > Fro (maybe)
> >> > The Bookworm
> >> > Gossamer
> >> > Mike Paff
> >> > Caric
> >> > Court Schuett
> >> > Adam
> >> > Nick Van
> >> > Droopy
> >> > Czar Eggbert
>> > > Paolo & Armanda (my gf)
> >> >Loki
> >> >NightLife
> >> >Onyx
> >> >Smilin' Ted
> >> The Digital Mage aka Grant Erswell
> >> Steve K.
> >Bob Ooton aka TopCat,
> >Adam Lyle aka WolfJack
> The Kumquat aka Josh Brown

> Uhhh... Granite??? I said I'd be there.... after all, I haven't missed
> one in 7 years... Why start now?

I must have missed ya... Your part of this list now :)
--------------------------------GRANITE
"Rock Steady"
===============================================
Lord, Grant Me The Serenity To Accept The Things I Cannot Change,
The Courage To Change The Things I Can,
And The Wisdom To Hide The Bodies Of Those People I Had To Kill
Because They Pissed Me Off.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ShadowRunner's Serenity Prayer
===============================================
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 13:18:30 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Mike Elkins <MikeE@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Area Spells -Reply

>By this argument, why isn't air opaque, then?
It's there, why shouldn't it
>intervene, if glass does?

I use the house rule that solids are opaque,
gases are transparent, and liquids are usually
opaque. Mist looks like mist, once you are
underwater you can see a little, but entering
water (or fire, or earth) gives the projector a
wierd feeling and cuts visibility dramatically.

Double-Domed Mike
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 14:28:53 -0400
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Lorden <westln@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gel rounds and knockdown rules
In-Reply-To: Gurth <gurth@******.NL> "Re: Gel rounds and knockdown rules"
(Jul
28, 12:34pm)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Jul 28, 12:34pm, Gurth wrote:
> Subject: Re: Gel rounds and knockdown rules
> Justin Pinnow said on 1:35/28 Jul 97...
>
> > Could someone please fill me in on the appropriate modifiers for
> > knockdown/back power levels for gel rounds? The BBB makes reference to a
> > nonexistant section within itself that is supposed to give the details on
> > this. :)
>
> That reference should read "earlier in this section," or better "on
page
> 91." Normal rounds use half their Power as the TN for the knockdown test,
> but to resist knockdown from gel rounds the full Power Level is used.
>
>-- End of excerpt from Gurth

While gel rounds do not suffer from power divided by two that
normal rounds do, they do have a -2 to their base power.So a
gel round has a "full power level" of 2 less than a normal round.
Stun rounds don't suffer from that. Besides shotguns, I can't
remember what else will fire stun rounds.

--
Nigel westln@***.edu
AKA C. Yossarrian, UPAC Projectionist
AKA Lorden
Speaking for myself, and no one else.
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 12:38:06 +0000
Reply-To: hardware@*******.ab.ca
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <hardware@*******.datanet.ab.ca>
From: Shane Courtrille <hardware@*******.DATANET.AB.CA>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Toxin Rules
In-Reply-To: <199707230047.SAA04316@******>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

> equal to his Body x10. If someone gives him the antidote they make a
> Biotech(10) Test (modified by the table on page 115), and if they

This seems strange.. since most of the work is done by the
antidote... not the person administering it... it seems like that
test should be related to the power of the antidote.. does it not?

*wave*

Shane Courtrille - hardware@*******.ab.ca

Being in love... What a trip...
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 15:38:13 EST
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <bxb24@**.opp.psu.edu>
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Organization: Office of Physical Plant
Subject: Re: the uac dilemma (minor insect spirit spoilers!)
In-Reply-To: <s3dc7b3f.004@********.dragonsys.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

> room would force them to move out and build a
> new hive (IMHO).

Not to mention hunting you down en masse.
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 15:45:56 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Mike Elkins <MikeE@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: the uac dilemma (minor insect spirit spoilers!) -Reply

>> room would force them to move out and build
a
>> new hive (IMHO).
>
>Not to mention hunting you down en masse.

There is that. The bugs would be
rather...motivated <EGMG>

Double-Domed Mike
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 15:17:25 -0600
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Area Spells -Reply
In-Reply-To: <199707281646.KAA10391@******> from "david lowe" at Jul 28,
97 09:56:55 am
Content-Type: text

david lowe wrote:
|
| At 11:37 AM 7/28/97, Wendy Wanders, Subject 117 wrote:
|
| >By this argument, why isn't air opaque, then? It's there, why shouldn't it
| >intervene, if glass does? It's so much simpler for things to work as they do
| >on the physical, rather than ruling case-by-case whether they are transparent
| >or not. Would a pool of water be transparent or opaque, for instance?
| >
| >losthalo
|
| I would say that distilled water, or reasonably polluted water would be
| transparent, but that most other bodies of water would not only be opaque,
| but would block astral movement. Most bodies of water are chock full of
| life. Hmmm, FAB without all that hassle anyone?

I would rule that poluted water would be opaque, if it's full of
particulate matter in a suspension. Clear water that's poisoned
would be transparent (which might be a clue for a mystery adventure
:).

A liquid should be transperant or opaque depending on how much
particulate matter is in suspension, and/or how much "life" is in
it.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 16:53:29 -0400
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: David Fayes y Angel Ramos <hansa@****.NET>
Subject: Re: Hallucinogens in SR
In-Reply-To: <19970723.181225.10550.1.Spamquat@****.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 06:12 PM 23/07/1997 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>Any ideas on the game mechanics/effects for the use of hallucinogens in
>SR? Peyote, LSD, Shrooms... How hard might they be to acquire? How might
>they affect Magicians, especially shamans? (Keeping in mind the native
>belief in peyote as a method of inducing visions and becoming closer to
>the spirits) What nasty side affects might certain hallucinogens have
>since the Awakening? There's lots of evil Gm fodder here....
>
In Plastic Warriors (edited by Gurth) you can find rules for that.

The Elven mage

Who likes PW very much
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 02:16:00 GMT
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: [OT] Re: Shadowrun Movies (was Re: A Li'l Ole Question)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9707251134.D23184-0100000@****.bcl.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

on 25.07.97 wolfjack@****.BCL.NET wrote:

w> >
w> > BTW for a REAL Shadowrun like movie, try the Origianl "Nemesis"
w> >
w>
w> I thought that "Nemesis" had more of a CyberPunk, R. Talsorian Games,
w> feel to it that an SR one. Some of the quotes, how things were done, etc
w> were very CyberPunk.

Yeah. It's very gibsoid. But that's what SR is like. Just with magic...

bye
## CrossPoint v3.1 ##
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 02:26:00 GMT
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: the uac dilemma
In-Reply-To: <01BC990A.140AB520@********.u96.stevens-tech.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

on 25.07.97 jhurley1@************.EDU wrote:

j> > But you are right on one thing: a kick to the groin's not going to stop a
j> > fight. That's why you follow it up.
j>
j> A kick to the kneecap, on the other hand.

Kick the knee of the leg carrying his weight. If you hit it right, the
lower bone (what's its english name?!) will shoot right out of the back of
the knee. Most people (except those with 'regeneration') will stop
fighting, once there bones start leaving their body...nasty...

bye

## CrossPoint v3.1 ##
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 21:17:00 GMT
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Geasa
In-Reply-To: <199707251034.MAA28798@*****.xs4all.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

konichi-wa

on 25.07.97 gurth@******.NL wrote:

g> For instance, Jeff the grade 0 initiate loses a magic point (somebody
g> shot off his arm and he failed his magic loss check). He chooses a geas of
g> gesturing for the lost MP, so if he gestures he has a Magic rating of 6,
g> while if he doesn't, it's 5.
g> Then he initiates to grade 1. If using method A, he'd have a Magic rating
g> of 6 and no geas; with method B his Magic rating is 6 if he doesn't
g> gesture, and 7 when he does.

Maybe I'm wrong (I didn't get the original 'Geasa' post) but you give the
player the options 6 MP without gestureing and 7 with, or 6 with or
without it, right? So, why should he take the second one? It would just
erase his chance to cast better spells whith gestures.

bye
## CrossPoint v3.1 ##
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 02:05:00 GMT
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: Skill Levels
In-Reply-To: <yam7146.2039.136416864@****.amigaworld.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi!

on 26.07.97 barbie@**********.COM wrote:

b> Thats true our powerlevel is in our old charactergroup fairly high.
b> Me going for 512 karma the rest between 450 and 300.
b> And we are six and up most of the time.
b> Most of them have some skill in the range of 12 to 20.
b> Mainly for their main field of activity but some are just for "hobby"
b> skills like painting dance or so.

One thing: Is it fun anymore?

In my group we decided that skills 10+ are above what you can hold as a
normal person (We still have to convince our GM. He's bit out of scale
lately). O.K. you can learn one skill at level 15 for some time, but one
month out of training (and I'm talking about all-day-training) and you are
back at 12 or something like that. If your char can do anything, why play
anymore? Why find the guy who coded the MCT mainframe OS and get some
information about it, when you can crack it with a RadioShack-deck?
BTW, how long have you played these chars. Some friends of mine play the
same guys since two years and the best they have is a troll with a karma-
pool of 12...

bye

## CrossPoint v3.1 ##
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 18:39:00 GMT
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Karma and Attributes
In-Reply-To: <199707262204.SAA27848@****.provide.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

on 26.07.97 vanyel@*******.NET wrote:

v> I feel that since it's the sammies that tend to increase their attributes
v> the most, that it's fine by me if they get stuck paying more than mages
v> because a spell lock can be turned off. At least their cyber/bioware can't
v> be grounded through. It all has its ups and downs. I would also rule that
v> Physads can't turn of their increased attributes, either. Thus, they too
v> would get stuck paying the higher cost....which is also fine by me for the
v> same reason.

Well, I don't think thats o.k. You are right, the fighters (Sams, Mercs,
Physads, etc) *have* to increase their attributes the most. If you would
make that more expensive to them, they would fall back behind mages as the
game developes (this is already happening in SR, anyway). It's not that
much fun anymore, if a 100 karmapoints mage takes down three fighters of
the same karmalevel without even starting to sweat.

You can keep control of the skill/attribute/spell/whatever ratings by
simply letting the GM decide whether the char can increase it or not.
Works just fine in our group (O.K., you need a non-asshole GM, but if your
GM *is* an asshole, it's no fun anyway).

Tobias
## CrossPoint v3.1 ##
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 21:48:00 GMT
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: The Chromium Mage
In-Reply-To: <199707250640.BAA27934@*******.fgi.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

on 25.07.97 topcat@***.NET wrote:

t> Here's a Chromium Mage (Burnout) for ya...

[cutting...]

t> Skills (10 pts)
t> ---------------
t> Sorcery: 6
t> Magic Theory: 3
t> Hermetic: 5

Hmmm...Where I come from, he wouldn't survive ten minutes. No chance to
flee, fight or anything. Kinda like a weapon I take out of my van, use to
blow everything into pieces and put back before it get's damaged. No fun
at all. (No *roleplaying* at all)

t> Mana Missile 6 (drain 3M physical)
t> Stun Bolt 6 (drain 2S physical)
t> Treat 6 [drain 3(wound level) physical, target 7]
t> Redirect 6 [drain (1/2 spell force)(spell damage code - 1 DC) physical]
t> Power Dart 6 (drain 4L physical)

Ouch!

t> Secure Jacket (dikoted) 6/4 armor rating
t> Helmet (dikoted) 2/2 armor rating
t> Forearm Guards (dikoted) 1/3 armor rating (only in melee)
t> Large Riot Shield (dikoted) 3/1 armor rating (not in melee)
t> >>>>[That's an 11/8 armor factor, 9/10 in melee, 8/7 without
toys]<<<<
t> DocWagon Platinum
t> As much high lifestyle as can be afforded...

Do you allow dikoted stuff at CharGen?

t> 4) Stats - gotta raise Body, so he's nigh-impossible to hurt, and Strength,
t> so he can eventually wear dikoted heavy military armor...

STOP!! Dikoted heavy milspec?!? What is this? The Mr. Mega-Munchkin-
Contest? I don't know any GM who would allow this (and I know quite a lot)
This guy's a nice example how to make a killing-maschine, but no char.

t> Granted, this character represents perhaps the pinnacle of powergaming for
t> his sort.

And my GM didn't allow my phyad to have unarmed combat >8.....Man!

t> It was intended to be such though, and I have no intentions
t> whatsoever of playing such a beast (though I would happily play a cybered
t> mage, this one doesn't thrill me).

Do you think, he is playable?

bye

## CrossPoint v3.1 ##
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 17:08:35 +1000
Reply-To: jade@***.net
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Jason & Deanna Rodhouse <jade@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Area Spells
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:51:28 -0500 Glenn Brook said:
snip
>Finally, an astrally perceiving mage would be able to target
>both physical and astral targets but would be subject to a +2 TN
>(associated with the attempt to make a physical action while astrally
>perceiving) when targeting physical targets.

I don't think the +2 TN modifier would apply in this scenario since the
spellcaster is indeed casting a spell. Finding the target wouldn't
necessarily be a strictly physical action. The modifier only really
applies when the magician is trying to do something not directly tied to
the astral plane(ie. tying his shoelaces, talking to someone). Being
that all living things have a bright shiny aura, the TN modifier would
not apply when trying to spot them.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 00:10:55 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Organization: Affilated Artists
Subject: Re: Rhenium polymers
In-Reply-To: <505E6C4C1EA1D011B90D00805FE2F492073B15@*********.reichhold.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

At 28-Jul-97 wrote Jackson, Hank:


##### # # # # ## #####
# # # # # # # # #
# ###### # # # # # #
# # # # ## # ###### #####
# # # ## ## # # #
# # # # # # # #


DON`T USE MIME, READ THE FAQ WHY

--
Barbie


==================================================
You can see the earth we`re high here we`re
climbing over sumertowm you can kiss the air we`re
gliding follow me for sumerland no sound no life
no essence we lay enstranged in our curious ways
memories lay beside us but i`m seeing through an
age who i`m through sumerland.

(Fields of the Nephilim-Eilzium-Weil of Sumer)

==================================================
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 18:19:51 PDT
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Scott Spencer <java@**********.COM>
Subject: Shadowrn
Comments: To: SRcreate <srcreate@****.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; X-MAPIextension=".TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Is the Shadowrn list down or am I just paranoid that I have not gotten any
mail all weekend.

Java
"And into the heart of the Storm, with a cry that pierced all other sounds,
tearing clouds asunder, the Nazgul came...And all were branded with the
foul token of the Lidless Eye"
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 19:16:13 EDT
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Geasa

On Sun, 27 Jul 1997 21:17:00 GMT Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
writes:
>konichi-wa


Welcome!
Bull, I *think* that's your cue (and since I don't know enough Japanese
to find a bathroom, I'm not entirely sure:)


<el snippo de Gurth :) >
<<Maybe I'm wrong (I didn't get the original 'Geasa' post) but you give
the player the options 6 MP without gestureing and 7 with, or 6 with or
without it, right? So, why should he take the second one? It would just
erase his chance to cast better spells whith gestures.>>


What Gurth was talking about was allowing the character shed the geased
magic point and replace it with a new, non-geased point. The advantage is
that he no longer needs to gesture, the disadvantage is that he loses the
possibility of an extra point for spellcasting or whatever.


--
-Canthros
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud
and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
--Francis Bacon
http://members.aol.com/canthros1
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 19:16:13 EDT
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: The Chromium Mage

On Sun, 27 Jul 1997 21:48:00 GMT Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
writes:
<very big snip>
>STOP!! Dikoted heavy milspec?!? What is this? The Mr. Mega-Munchkin-
>Contest? I don't know any GM who would allow this (and I know quite a
>lot)
>This guy's a nice example how to make a killing-maschine, but no char.

I don't know if this will hit the list before Bob's message does, but I
think you missed the message that spawned this. TopCat's Chrome Mage was
designed to absolutely abuse the rules system, it was intended to test
out how far you could go with the idea of a burned-out mage and see just
how munchkinish a character could be created with that idea in mind. It
wasn't designed to be realistic, or playable (from the standpoint of
personality;) It was designed to stretch the rules as far as possible.


--
-Canthros
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud
and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
--Francis Bacon
http://members.aol.com/canthros1
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 19:13:47 -0400
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: [GC] Re: Gen Con, Guest list :) UPDATED 26JULY:1005L
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 01:52 PM 7/27/97 -0500, Adam J. Lyle wrote these timeless words:
<SNIP>
and me, even though I am new to
>this list and have posted just one reply.

Well then, let me just say "HI!" and welcome you to the list.

+++++ BULL-BOT ACTIVATED
+++++ AUTO GREET INITIATED

Hello there, new list-member Adam J. Lyle! Welcome to the Shadowrn Mailing
List!

It's a great place, with good people and great discussion! hope ya like mail!

+++++ AUTO OFF TOPIC RANDOM GENERATOR v2.1 INITIATED
+++++ TOPIC #827

I may be a BOT, but I have feeling, DAMMIT! :]

+++++ END AUTO GREET

Bull-the-Welcome-Ork-Decker
--
Bull, aka Steven Ratkovich, aka Rak, aka a lot of others! :]

The Offical Celebrity Shadowrn Mailing List Welcome Ork Decker!
Fearless Leader of the Star Wars Mailing List
List Flunky of ShadowCreations, creators of the Newbies Guide,
in production now!
HOME PAGE: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3604/home.html

"Gen Con, here I come!"
-- Me
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 19:13:44 -0400
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Rhenium polymers
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 12:10 AM 7/29/97 -0500, Barbie wrote these timeless words:
>At 28-Jul-97 wrote Jackson, Hank:
>
>
> ##### # # # # ## #####
> # # # # # # # # #
> # ###### # # # # # #
> # # # # ## # ###### #####
> # # # ## ## # # #
> # # # # # # # #
>
>
>DON`T USE MIME, READ THE FAQ WHY
>
>
Heh...

Hey Spike! Barbie's doing your job, dude...:]

Bull
--
Bull, aka Steven Ratkovich, aka Rak, aka a lot of others! :]

The Offical Celebrity Shadowrn Mailing List Welcome Ork Decker!
Fearless Leader of the Star Wars Mailing List
List Flunky of ShadowCreations, creators of the Newbies Guide,
in production now!
HOME PAGE: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3604/home.html

"Gen Con, here I come!"
-- Me
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 19:13:49 -0400
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: help
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 11:47 PM 7/27/97 -0400, Ian White wrote these timeless words:
>Help me please????????????
>I've newly joined the list and changed to the digest version, but have
>decided that I prefer individual postings.
>My problem is I don't know how to change back.
>could someone please help me???
>
Well, you've already gotten some help with the digest stuff, so I won;t
repeat it all.

But... I need to officially greet you to the list still, so...:]

+++++ BULL-BOT ACTIVATED
+++++ AUTO GREET INITIATED

Hello there, new list-member Dernhelm! Welcome to the Shadowrn Mailing List!

It's a great place, with good people and great discussion! hope ya like mail!

+++++ AUTO OFF TOPIC RANDOM GENERATOR v3.0 INITIATED
+++++ TOPIC #631

Keaton, Clooney, Kilmer, or West?

+++++ END AUTO GREET

Bull-the-welcome-Ork-Decker
--
Bull, aka Steven Ratkovich, aka Rak, aka a lot of others! :]

The Offical Celebrity Shadowrn Mailing List Welcome Ork Decker!
Fearless Leader of the Star Wars Mailing List
List Flunky of ShadowCreations, creators of the Newbies Guide,
in production now!
HOME PAGE: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3604/home.html

"Gen Con, here I come!"
-- Me
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 19:16:13 EDT
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: [SR3] Conjuring

I was doing some thinking (dangerous, I know) on the Conjuring rules as
written in SR2, and had a flash of sudden inspiration on a revised set of
conjuring rules (unfortunately, I don't think they're any less clunky).
The system I wound up with is similar to Spellcasting
Anyways, here's what I was thinking:

Conjuring Pool:
The Conjuring Pool is similar to the Magic (which, for clarity,
could be re-named the Sorcery Pool) Pool used in spellcasting and is
based upon the summoner's Conjuring Skill. A Shaman's totem modifiers add
or subtract from the Conjuring Pool. Spirit Foci add dice to the
Conjuring Pool. Power Foci add their rating to the bonded magician's
Magic Rating, and also to his/her Magic and Conjuring Pools.

Summoning:
Summoning Drain is figured by replacing Magic with Charisma in
the chart on pg140 of SR2. Drain is resisted with Willpower and any dice
thrown in from the newly-created Conjuring Pool.
To summon a spirit, the magician rolls his/her Charisma, plus any
allocated dice from the Conjuring Pool, against a target number equal to
the spirit's force, modified only by wound modiiers or geas modifiers
(under SR2). The summoning magician may throw in up to his Magic Rating
in dice from his Conjuring Pool. Every two successes equals one service.

Banishing:
Banishing a spirit pits the magician's will against that of the
spirit ("by the power of my will..."). In a banishing test, the magician
rolls his Willpower (plus Conjuring Pool) against the spirit's Force. The
spirit rolls its willpower (usually equal to its Force) against the
magician's Magic Rating. The winner's net successes reduce the loser's
Magic/Force Rating by one for every two successes.

I haven't gotten to the tests on commanding uncontrolled/free spirits or
the ones for contesting the control of a spirit from the controlling
magician, but I wanted to see what the list in general thought of the
idea so far. I'm hoping it becomes a bit easier by being more like the
spellcasting system, which is (I think) a bit better known due to greater
use.


--
-Canthros, vanishing back into the electronic ether to get back to work
on updating his webpage...
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud
and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
--Francis Bacon
http://members.aol.com/canthros1
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 18:36:49 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: William Monroe Ashe <wma6617@****.TAMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Conjuring
In-Reply-To: <19970728.191514.25679.3.lobo1@****.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, John E Pederson wrote:

> Summoning:
> Summoning Drain is figured by replacing Magic with Charisma in
> the chart on pg140 of SR2. Drain is resisted with Willpower and any dice
> thrown in from the newly-created Conjuring Pool.
> To summon a spirit, the magician rolls his/her Charisma, plus any
> allocated dice from the Conjuring Pool, against a target number equal to
> the spirit's force, modified only by wound modiiers or geas modifiers
> (under SR2). The summoning magician may throw in up to his Magic Rating
> in dice from his Conjuring Pool. Every two successes equals one service.


Hold it; if you replace the conjuring "skill" with naked charisma, then
what is the point of having that skill at all. I like this idea, but leave
it as a skill test, and not as a charisma test.


just my 0.02

-Bill
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 02:06:20 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Organization: Affilated Artists
Subject: Re: Skill Levels
In-Reply-To: <6ajjFALwX3B@****.komet.teuto.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

At 27-Jul-97 wrote Tobias Berghoff:

>Hi!

>One thing: Is it fun anymore?

Oh definetly

>In my group we decided that skills 10+ are above what you can hold as a
>normal person (We still have to convince our GM. He's bit out of scale
>lately). O.K. you can learn one skill at level 15 for some time, but one
>month out of training (and I'm talking about all-day-training) and you are
>back at 12 or something like that.

Nice thoughts but IMHO the time scale to forgett a skilllevel is much
to low, maybe make it basetime=skilllevel devided by six or so
and the result is the time in months in that you will lose a skilllevel
if the skill in question is not used/trained.
Throw some memory rolls in it to see if the character can hold his skilllevel
if he don`t use the skill.
Or make it simple just use a memoryroll once a year for every skill of the
character
modify the roll if the character has used the skill.
Just my quick thoughts.

>If your char can do anything, why play
>anymore? Why find the guy who coded the MCT mainframe OS and get some
>information about it, when you can crack it with a RadioShack-deck?
>BTW, how long have you played these chars. Some friends of mine play the
>same guys since two years and the best they have is a troll with a karma-
>pool of 12...

Oh our charcters as a whole can do much anything but alone?
These are specialist.
MCT mainframe? Not a nice place and in our game even we need more
than an radio-shack(tm).
And sometimes you find the info you need not in the net you must
talk to the people in question.
And with the things we do comes also greet responsibility so we are not just
a bunch of superpowered thuggs. We are in the upperclass of shadowrunning like
Bull and some other too.
<Bow to Bull the-famos-Ork-decker>

Some of the characters in our game are as old as the first edition :-)
Maincore around four to five years.

pool 45 is the highst :]




--
Barbie


==================================================
You can see the earth we`re high here we`re
climbing over sumertowm you can kiss the air we`re
gliding follow me for sumerland no sound no life
no essence we lay enstranged in our curious ways
memories lay beside us but i`m seeing through an
age who i`m through sumerland.

(Fields of the Nephilim-Eilzium-Weil of Sumer)

==================================================
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 02:11:28 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Organization: Affilated Artists
Subject: Re: Rhenium polymers
In-Reply-To: <3.0.16.19970728185954.2faf6d0e@*****.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

At 28-Jul-97 wrote Bull:


>Hey Spike! Barbie's doing your job, dude...:]

Just as deputy :-)
--
Barbie


==================================================
You can see the earth we`re high here we`re
climbing over sumertowm you can kiss the air we`re
gliding follow me for sumerland no sound no life
no essence we lay enstranged in our curious ways
memories lay beside us but i`m seeing through an
age who i`m through sumerland.

(Fields of the Nephilim-Eilzium-Weil of Sumer)

==================================================
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 20:22:31 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: "Wendy Wanders, Subject 117"
<KGGEWEHR@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Conjuring
In-Reply-To: "Your message dated Mon, 28 Jul 1997 19:16:13 -0400 (EDT)"
<19970728.191514.25679.3.lobo1@****.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

You wrote:
> Conjuring Pool:
> The Conjuring Pool is similar to the Magic (which, for clarity,
> could be re-named the Sorcery Pool) Pool used in spellcasting and is
> based upon the summoner's Conjuring Skill. A Shaman's totem modifiers add
> or subtract from the Conjuring Pool. Spirit Foci add dice to the
> Conjuring Pool. Power Foci add their rating to the bonded magician's
> Magic Rating, and also to his/her Magic and Conjuring Pools.
Okay, a small problem I see with this is that while Magic Pool sometimes needs
to be saved to defend against spells, it's rare that you'd need to hold back
any of the dice in your Conjuring Pool, you'd rather pump as many as possible
into whatever you're doing. This method basically just gives more dive for
Conjuring-related tests. If that's what you want, that's fine, but I don't
personally think it's needed. The system's are closer to the procedures for
casting spells with Sorcery, so it does make the magic system a little more
similar and compatible, so that's one strength. I would just rather see less
dice supplements in the game overall.

losthalo
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 20:35:10 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: TEGTMEBC@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU
Subject: Re: [SR3] Conjuring
In-Reply-To: "Your message dated Mon, 28 Jul 1997 18:36:49 -0500"
<Pine.SOL.3.91.970728183504.4235B-100000@******.tamu.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

You wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, John E Pederson wrote:

> > Summoning:
> > Summoning Drain is figured by replacing Magic with Charisma in
> > the chart on pg140 of SR2. Drain is resisted with Willpower and any dice
> > thrown in from the newly-created Conjuring Pool.
> > To summon a spirit, the magician rolls his/her Charisma, plus any
> > allocated dice from the Conjuring Pool, against a target number equal to
> > the spirit's force, modified only by wound modiiers or geas modifiers
> > (under SR2). The summoning magician may throw in up to his Magic Rating
> > in dice from his Conjuring Pool. Every two successes equals one service.


> Hold it; if you replace the conjuring "skill" with naked charisma, then
> what is the point of having that skill at all. I like this idea, but leave
> it as a skill test, and not as a charisma test.

You're right about not having any use for the skill if Charisma is used
in it's stead, but that's how it works with spellcasting. The Sorcery skill
doesn't do a whole lot of good except give you a good Magic Pool. That said, I
like the idea of the Conjuring Pool, so it is possible to conjure high force
elementals and spirits without having to be an elf. But I also have to agree
with Bill here, and say you should still use the conjuring skill for the test.
I personally think the sorcery skill should be used for something other than
giving a extra dice pool as well. In the case of the Conjuring Pool, maybe it
would be possible to reverse what you have listed for the test. Maybe you could
have the Pool be based off of the Charisma, while the test is still using the
Conjuring Skill. That sound too far out of whack to you?

-The Immortal Mental

PS- It's good to finally be back after summer.
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 20:44:33 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: TEGTMEBC@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU
Subject: Re: Area Spells
In-Reply-To: "Your message dated Mon, 28 Jul 1997 10:45:14 -0600"
<199707281645.KAA10201@******>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

David wrote:
> Mike Elkins wrote:
> |
> | Here's another "thought experiment":
> |
> | A magician casts a physical area-of-effect spell
> | at a point in the middle of a wheat field. Does it
> | only effect the wheat stalks towards the front that
> | he can see well, does it effect a nice neat circle
> | in the crop, or does it effect a few dozen or so
> | stalks that happen to be the ones his mind
> | "noticed"? Substitute a crowd in a passing
> | subway car if you think a field of wheat is too
> | boring...

> I'm gonna say that the wheat that the magician can't see isn't
> affected by the combat spell (ditto for the people in the crowd).

> This is a rule that I've had to read a lot, cuz one of the players in
> my game keeps trying to use Fireball to affect targets around corners
> (We're playing SR, not AD$D! <sigh>). It doesn't matter what's
> blocking your sight.

OK, I have to bring this up, because it's just been bugging me. Now if
a spell isn't able to affect people that the magician can't see, as you
suggest, then how does the area of effect get handled? For example: The mage
that loves to hit people with fireballs from around corners is being chased by
a mob of angery people. He ducks around a corner, and whaits for his victims.
The moment the first person walks around the corner, he can now see them and so
lets loose with a fireball. The person he could see is obviously a dead duck,
but what happens in regard to the rest of the mob that was right behind him?
They are, for the sake of argument, still within the normal radius of the
spell. Are these people supposed to be affected by the spell or not? I would
say that they would be affected based on the fact that they weren't the targets
of the spell, they just got caught in the blast. But from your argument, it
would seem that they should be unaffected since the caster can't see them.
I'm not trying to shoot holes in your logic, I just want to know why
the people wouldn't be affected by a blast that is in the physical plane. After
all, once it hits the target, it changes form the astral to the physical plane.
At least that's how I think it works.

-The Immortal Mental
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 21:00:57 -0400
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Justin Pinnow <vanyel@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Conjuring
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I just wanted to let you know that I really like the Conjuring rules the
way they are currently. They are clean and concise, and they don't allow
folks to whip up high force spirits without recourse.

Not that the suggestions made weren't nice, I just don't think the system
needs to be changed.

Justin :)
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 21:06:12 -0400
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Justin Pinnow <vanyel@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Area Spells
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> From: TEGTMEBC@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU
> Date: Monday, July 28, 1997 9:44 PM

<Snip>

> David wrote:

> > This is a rule that I've had to read a lot, cuz one of the players in
> > my game keeps trying to use Fireball to affect targets around corners
> > (We're playing SR, not AD$D! <sigh>). It doesn't matter what's
> > blocking your sight.

> OK, I have to bring this up, because it's just been bugging me.
Now if
> a spell isn't able to affect people that the magician can't see, as you
> suggest, then how does the area of effect get handled? For example: The
mage
> that loves to hit people with fireballs from around corners is being
chased by
> a mob of angery people. He ducks around a corner, and whaits for his
victims.
> The moment the first person walks around the corner, he can now see them
and so
> lets loose with a fireball. The person he could see is obviously a dead
duck,
> but what happens in regard to the rest of the mob that was right behind
him?

They are not in LOS, therefore they are not affected. Your area effect
spell just hit one person only.

> They are, for the sake of argument, still within the normal radius of the
> spell. Are these people supposed to be affected by the spell or not? I
would

No, because for area of effect spells (except for DMs), you must be able to
see anyone/thing you want to target by the spell. Area of effect has no
effect on this. Anyone that can be seen within the area of effect of the
spell will be effected.

> say that they would be affected based on the fact that they weren't the
targets
> of the spell, they just got caught in the blast. But from your argument,
it
> would seem that they should be unaffected since the caster can't see
them.

He is correct by stating this.

> I'm not trying to shoot holes in your logic, I just want to know
why
> the people wouldn't be affected by a blast that is in the physical plane.
After
> all, once it hits the target, it changes form the astral to the physical
plane.
> At least that's how I think it works.

It still grounds through their auras. If you can't see them, the spell
doesn't target their auras.

Damaging Maniputations (DMs) behave differently. They don't target auras,
thus a blast of flame or whatever fills the area of effect, effecting
everyone within it.

Hope that clears things up a bit. :)


> -The Immortal
Mental

Justin :)
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 20:55:38 -0500
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: James Paulsen <lowfyr@***********.COM>
Organization: Northern Net
Subject: My New Campaign
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hey all, I need some input :)

I have decided to start a new campaign (as soon as the characters in the
current game retire), but I have sorta changed the premise of my game,
or at least the beginning of it.

Instead of having the players create characters who are already
shadowrunners, I want to try more of a roleplayed background. I have
done this before in just about every game I play, just never SR. I am
going to have them create fairly mundane characters (wageslaves, small
time corps, or, if I am feeling really charitable, maybe a cop, corpsec,
or a gutterpunk, but nothing heavy).

Anyway, the whole concept is based on easing them from their mundane,
tragically boring lives into the world of Big Scary Shadowrunners--make
them the innocents, and initially the victims (well...later too, but
that's another story ;).

To begin with they will have very few shadowrunish skills, mostly only
those that would be tied to a mundane character (i.e. Electronics B/R
for a repairman, etc.). The same will apply to both magic and cyberware.
If they want any, it will have to justifiable, legal, and rational for
them to get anything beyond a datajack.

Eventually they will become "full blown" runners, having a detailed and
thouroghly played out background of how they entered the biz. I am very
excited about this as are my players, but I was wondering if anybody had
ever done this sort of thing and if so how it worked out? Also, we
generally prefer the point based system (no mertis or flaws, however, as
I usually dole out the merits and flaws in their bg with out points
or benefits)so are there any ideas on how to restrict the system to keep
them from making a real kick-ass janitor?

Anyway...gotta stop blabbing,

Thanks in advance,

Jim
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 23:03:38 EDT
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Conjuring

On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 18:36:49 -0500 William Monroe Ashe
<wma6617@****.TAMU.EDU> writes:

<<Hold it; if you replace the conjuring "skill" with naked charisma, then
what is the point of having that skill at all. I like this idea, but
leave it as a skill test, and not as a charisma test.>>

The reason I did that was to keep from making Charisma the 'unused
attribute' and give it some practical use outside social situations (and
thus give a reason for a munchkin to have a Charisma greater than one). I
certainly see your point, If I can find a better way of keeping Charisma
important, I'll certainly go that route (maybe make the Conjuring Pool
based on Attriubutes?).

The whole idea behind this was to create a conjuring system that makes
sense, while not making Charisma a near-useless attribute. Hmmm...maybe a
modifier for Charisma depending on its rating.

<shrug> Got any ideas?


--
-Canthros
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud
and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
--Francis Bacon
http://members.aol.com/canthros1
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 23:03:38 EDT
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Conjuring

On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 20:22:31 -0500 "Wendy Wanders, Subject 117"
<KGGEWEHR@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU> writes:


<<Okay, a small problem I see with this is that while Magic Pool
sometimes needs to be saved to defend against spells, it's rare that
you'd need to hold back any of the dice in your Conjuring Pool, you'd
rather pump as many as possible into whatever you're doing.>>


Well, the mage still needs to stay awake, or he loses the spirit, and not
resisting all the drain isn't going to do a shaman any favors (why bother
with a spirit in the middle of combat if it'll save your butt only so
that you can fall unconcious and get captured anyway?)


<<This method basically just gives more dive for Conjuring-related tests.
If that's what you want, that's fine, but I don't personally think it's
needed. The system's are closer to the procedures for casting spells
with Sorcery, so it does make the magic system a little more similar and
compatible, so that's one strength. I would just rather see less dice
supplements in the game overall.>>

:) I figured I'd get this complaint from you:) I really am against giving
more dice to the players, but I'm also trying to preserve the use of both
Conjuring Skill and Charisma, while still getting a system that makes
some sort of sense. I also wanted to allow the summoning magician a bit
more flexibility on his summoning (this would mean more to a shaman than
mage, though). It's not always easy to improve upon something, and I'd
certainly be more than welcome to input. If you've got any ideas, I'd
love to hear them...


--
-Canthros (Ah, well. The list was seeming kind of quiet anyway...)
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud
and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
--Francis Bacon
http://members.aol.com/canthros1
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 23:03:38 EDT
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Conjuring

On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 20:35:10 -0500 TEGTMEBC@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU writes:

<<You're right about not having any use for the skill if Charisma is used
in it's stead, but that's how it works with spellcasting. The Sorcery
skill doesn't do a whole lot of good except give you a good Magic Pool.
That said, I like the idea of the Conjuring Pool, so it is possible to
conjure high force elementals and spirits without having to be an elf.
But I also have to agree with Bill here, and say you should still use the
conjuring skill for the test. I personally think the sorcery skill should
be used for something other than giving a extra dice pool as well. In the
case of the Conjuring Pool, maybe it would be possible to reverse what
you have listed for the test. Maybe you could have the Pool be based off
of the Charisma, while the test is still using the Conjuring Skill. That
sound too far out of whack to you?>>


No, it doesn't, and I'd even considered just such an idea, but it then
does the same thing to Charisma that what I've just proposed does to
Conjuring skill (how anyone would be able to plausibly conjure a spirit
without at least a little bit of Conjuring Skill [or some serious
defaulting], I don't know, and any GM that let a player do such a thing
had better have some good reasoning behind him:). As I said (or will say,
depending on what order these messages wind up in) in my reply to Bill,
I'm trying to set it up in such a way that Charisma remains important,
certain discrepancies that (IMO) exist in the rules as-is (Drain based on
and resisted by Charisma) get fixed and Conjuring skill doesn't get set
totally by the wayside. Keeping the skill involved is the only reason
there's a dice pool at all.

Plan B: Summoning is handled by a Conjuring(Force) test, successes from
this test may be applied to the Conjuring Drain resistance test.


<<PS- It's good to finally be back after summer.>>


_After_ summer? It's still July! That sounds a lot like summer (if you're
in the northern hemisphere, anyway:)


--
-Canthros
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud
and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
--Francis Bacon
http://members.aol.com/canthros1
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 23:03:38 EDT
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Conjuring

On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 21:00:57 -0400 Justin Pinnow <vanyel@*******.NET>
writes:
<<I just wanted to let you know that I really like the Conjuring rules
the way they are currently. They are clean and concise, and they don't
allow folks to whip up high force spirits without recourse.

Not that the suggestions made weren't nice, I just don't think the system
needs to be changed.>>


My only complaint with the system as-is is the way that Conjuring Drain
is handled, I don't think it should be based on Charisma and it doesn't
make sense that it would be resisted by it, either. Of course, that's
only my opinion, I'm not sure what the general list opinion on the idea
is.


--
-Canthros (you know, if it weren't for the useful feedback I'm getting
out of this, I think I'd be sorry I ever proposed it:) And Kumquat? You
were right. It _is_ like throwing raw meat at a pack of rabid animals:)
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud
and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
--Francis Bacon
http://members.aol.com/canthros1