From:	"Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman" <jeremy@***********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Locking distant spells
Date:	Fri, 15 May 1998 14:50:02 -0700

----------
> From: Brian Moore <mooreb@****.FAC.COM>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: Locking distant spells
> Date: Friday, May 15, 1998 2:21 PM
>
> "Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman" <jeremy@***********.COM>
said:
> > > From: Brian Moore <mooreb@****.FAC.COM>
> > > ...
> > > P.S. I do remember the FASA module where a shaman locks spells on 4
> > > people. I believe the locks stay with those people in the module.
> >
> > Don't know which module that is... Was it four different locks?
>
> I believe so.
>

Then that's no big deal. You lock a spell onto four different locks,
you're good to go.

<snip>
> >
> > Hmm... I hadn't thought of that. I don't know how enchanting rules
work,
> > and I don't have the Grimmy here with me. Off hand I'd rule that the
PAC
> > is inherently unsuitable for enchantment. Both because of its size and
the
> > industrially processed nature of its materials. If generous, I say it
> > would have to be taken apart, ritually treated in order for it to be
> > enchanted (kinda like the car they give as an example as a focus), and
that
> > using it at as a weapon would disrupt the enchantment upon it.
>
> Sounds like house rules to me. I fairly sure there are no restrictions
> on what a mage uses as the "material basis" for a focus. You just get
> bonuses if you use a "virgin talesma" (natural pure item gathered by the
> enchanter) or "handmade talesma". Metal weapons are common Weapon Foci,
> and they are fairly well processed (though some may be handmade).
>

Of course they're house rules. That's why I said, "I'd rule that...". =)
When there's an absurd situation that the rules don't cover that could be
munchkin-ized, you make a house rule.

I'd think up more common sense ways around it, but I haven't cracked open
G2 in over a year, and I don't recall anything else that could limit. But
really, if something strikes you as absurd, like a player wanting to make a
spell lock out of a panzer, rule that it can't be bigger than blah, or
whatever. Or you could just increase the target number for huge objects.

> > And even if it gets past the metal detector, it may not get past the
> > assensing mage.
>
> Magic security can't be everywhere.
>

It can be where you have a metal detector though. Airports, the main
entrances to corporate offices. Nice little bottle necks where everyone has
to file past. Hire an adept/mage who has the ability to assense sit there,
or maybe a dual natured critter trained to detect spell locks. If some
smart ass can think to pull a stunt like that, some one will think to
counteract that. It may cost quite a bit to fund mages like that, but
consider the cost of having terrorist mages turning off their spell-locked
cannons.

> > Same with the Panzer and the Renraku Arcology. They're big, and you
would
> > have to disassemble and purify each bit even if you were to do it. I
think
> > a good ruling would be to just have a size limitation on spell locks,
> > perhaps even upping the cost to bind a spell to it.
>
> I agree that there should be a reasonable size limit, but there isn't.
>

So just use common sense. =)