Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Machiavelli May 18 2015, 02:36 PM

Horrido Dumpshockers,

Just a quick question: in our last run i ordered a force 6 power foci and wanted the talismonger to create a custom made special shape (net-like), so that i can either implant it around a bone or put it into carvings on my horns. But he refused with the explanation, that a force 6 focus is too big for such a thing. Now he is doin´t a quite big amulett for me (i had to complain a lot, to avoid getting a big gandalf-like magic-wand). I was a bit surprised, because i never heard of a force to size ratio, but mybe i have overread something?

Posted by: Sendaz May 18 2015, 02:59 PM

They say Gandalf had a big staff AND knew how to use it.

That demon of shadow and flame? His ex.


But seriously, your GM may be thinking of the units of radicals reagents or orichalcum needed for making a focus which is equal to the force of the focus, so in this case 6 units.

If I remember right 1 unit of orichalcum weighs 10 grams so not really that big when you are talking metals. The radical reagents will vary in weight depending on their source I suppose or they may be bulkier than nice dense orichalcum.

Still should be able to work something out by just talking to him.

Posted by: sk8bcn May 18 2015, 03:14 PM

I would say no but for another reason. Technically, you must touch the focus to activate/desactivate a focus. While having in into a bone implemented could be considered as touching it, I would say that it goes against the spirit of the thing.

I would thus say that you can, but you be nearly like dual natured and unable to desactivate it.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein May 18 2015, 03:47 PM

Why? If you are in contact with it to activate it, why would you not be in contact with it to deactivate it?

Posted by: Sendaz May 18 2015, 03:48 PM

*cough* http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=16127&view=findpost&p=491006 *cough*

Posted by: KarmaInferno May 18 2015, 05:25 PM

http://www.collectedcurios.com/sequentialart.php?s=917



But seriously, the size of the end-product focus is not really defined in the rules, so it's up to your GM.



-k

Posted by: PraetorGradivus May 18 2015, 08:51 PM

Tattoo foci are embedded in the skin and can be activated/deactivated.

By extension, why would a foci that's embedded in your horns not be able to do the same?

Now, if the foci the poster is talking about is a weapon foci, that's a whole different discussion.

Posted by: Deckbeard May 18 2015, 08:58 PM

As I run my game, the end product can pretty much be as big as you want within reason. No, you may not have a foci the size of an atom it the Empire States building. One of my players has a beast summoning focus that's a crows skull with inscriptions made of orichelcium. 3 drams of reagents would probably not fit on a crow's skull but the way I see it is that all the other stuff is used in the preparation of if. Like burning oricelcum sparklers or whatever. Long story short, long as you actually use all the reagents then it DOSNT really matter what the item is.

Posted by: Deckbeard May 18 2015, 09:01 PM

Oh man. Now I really want to make a troll physadept with his horns being a pair of weapon foci.

Posted by: PraetorGradivus May 18 2015, 09:12 PM

Assuming the GM allows it...it would have to be a Minotaur or a changeling Troll with Goring Horns as normal Troll horns aren't weapons.

If you were to headbutt someone with normal Troll horns it's the Unarmed Combat skill.

BTW, many people feel that regardless of Goring horns using the Exotic Weapon skill is still an 'unarmed' attack.
Those same people are split into the you can use things like killing strike/elemental strike because it's 'unarmed' and those people who say you can't use those powers either since it doesn't use Unarmed Combat skill.

But this is a separate question from what the poster asked and so we should get back to that if anyone else has something further to add.

Posted by: SpellBinder May 19 2015, 03:35 AM

On the subject of foci and size, I've never seen anything to say that size is a required factor in relation to the power of the focus.

Harlequin has one to two dozen pieces of flair that are various sustaining foci ranging in power from 5 to 10, and his rapier is a Force 16 weapon focus.

Frosty's dragon shaped ring is a Force 6 power focus.

Lugh Surehand wears a pinkie ring that's a Force 10 sustaining focus.

Winterhawk's cane is a Force 4 sustaining focus.

Posted by: Bull May 19 2015, 04:43 AM

It's your GM's game, so ultimately, it's his call.

That said, yeah, by the rules there's no hard limits or definitions for focus size.

Posted by: KarmaInferno May 19 2015, 05:59 AM

If I wanna make my focus the size of a city bus, I'll damn well do it!





-k

Posted by: Wothanoz May 19 2015, 07:09 AM

Isn't their an old line in the Grimoire or something along that lines?

Posted by: sk8bcn May 19 2015, 08:05 AM

Rule wise, probably nothing.

Yet *I* would say that the tattoo is imprinted on your skin and you can activate/desactivate it by concentration.

Now hide your focus into your underwears and no, you'd need something more to activate/desactivate.


Which btw doesn't contradicte Frosty's case. She doesn't desactivate the foci.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein May 19 2015, 12:58 PM

Says Who?

Posted by: Modular Man May 19 2015, 01:35 PM

I don't recall any rules that keep me from enchantin a piece of cyberware into a focus. In terms of balancing, that's pretty much like that net around a bone or a tattoo to me.
Size and such of a focus are purely in the eye of both the GM and the player (though GM veto trumps all, as usual).

To me, this sounds like you want a focus for your character that cannot be taken away (a notion which I can fully support, having done so in the past - power focus in a cyberarm compartment). The GM either doesn't seem to like that idea and hence put in a size requirement or has a completely different idea of foci (Gandalf-style wizards with wands versus, say, the Nightwatch books which mostly use hand-sized magic items or smaller).

I even once read about a bellybutton piercing focus for a female shaman... In my opinion, anything flies. Granted, even I would scoff at the idea of enchanted teeth fillings except for mybe a troll or orc. That is from a balancing and style perspective, though. I'd still allow it.
Just up the price a little (miniaturization and enchanting of advanced materials simply is expensive) and make sure the focus, while implanted, is still visible to astral perception. In my opinion, that's enough to keep it balanced.

It also depends on the definition of "touching" a focus to activate it. Fetishes have very strict rules regarding that, as I recall - you have to hold it in one of your hands. Foci lack such a strict definition. So in my book, anything connected to the mage's aura and/or touching the mage's body can be activated. That does include stuff inside the body, just because these are inside the aura as well.

There even is a huge danger to implanted foci - if such a focus catches an imp, it's way hard to get rid of it. It's also harder to ombat focus addiction, in my opinion, since the character has his "drug" with him any our of the day. The idea that nobody can take the focus away swings both ways.

Posted by: sk8bcn May 19 2015, 03:00 PM

In Harlequin's original story, it's Ehran that implement it (actually, it's only a spell) without Jane Foster noticing it.

Let's say it's a focus. It's Ehran's one and as far as I understand it and hence, it's not Jane that could activate/desactivate it.


Maybe she broke the link later on and re-attuned it. My claim is based on the original story.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein May 19 2015, 03:13 PM

Methinks that you are reading too much into it. Ehran cannot pay the Karma Cost of the Focus IN JANE. He cannot Bond it to himself (This is a requirement), because he is not in possession of it. Only she can do so. And if she paid the Karma to bond it (A requirement, after all) then she can activate and deactivate it at will.

Posted by: Sendaz May 19 2015, 04:02 PM

Actually in this case Sk8bcn is correct about Ehran paying for it.

The item is originally described as a spell lock (2nd ed stuff) which is basically a souped up sustaining focus except once put in place and activated, and yes even on another body, it maintains the spell in question without any further concentration from the original mage as it creates it own astral link to sustain the magics. This was a forerunner to the Metamagic Quickening which did the same thing but without the need for a physical spell lock to anchor it.

Remember the magic being maintained doesn't need to be friendly to the target, I knew one mage who used one to keep a particular ex as a shapechanged dog for a good week or so before she relented and released him.

However, I never fully got this, since it is always astrally active and Frosty should have noticed something astrally glowing in her own leg, though it may have been further masked by Ehran so she didn't notice it.

Also the thing can act as a material link back to the maker.

If I recall, wasn't it that astral trail is how Harley found Frosty in the first place, so yeah not so great parental planning.


However, I originally brought it up because if you can basically bond a spell lock to someone's bone, it could serve as precedence for bonding other types of foci, although now looking back spell locks were designed to be placed anywhere where foci are a bit more restricted so maybe not.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein May 19 2015, 04:22 PM

Ahhh... My mistake then.

As for Foci - If you can bond one to bone (Sustaining Foci) then you can bond one to Bone (Spellcasting/Power Foci). If it works for one, it should also work for another.

Posted by: Cochise May 19 2015, 04:30 PM

I would say that you are neglecting how different magic worked in previous editions. For starters Ehran could have bonded the focus any time prior to the implantation via karma expenditure. Unlike in later Editions there was no inherent demand for a bound focus to stay within the bonded mage's direct possession after the bonding. Spell locks and their successors sustaining foci as well as anchoring foci could and in some cases had to leave the bonding mage's immediate control / possession, e.g. a sustaining focus that made a friend invisible actually had to go with said friend in order to maintain the spell instead of staying with the casting magician.

The only canon problem with said focus would have been that under standard rules Ehran would not have had the ability to activate the focus after it was implanted into Frosty, unless it involved some seriously high grade detection spell as part of an anchor focus that would react to Ehran's thoughts virtually anywhere around the globe. However, Ehran being an Immortal Elf and thus operating under NPC rule of "whatever the story requires" in addition to the "special enchantment" rules?! That certainly leaves more than enough wiggle room for such an implanted focus being bonded and controlled by Ehran, since it becomes a plot device.

The main problem - for me - with implanted foci however lies with different aspects of the presented meta physics of magic and rules:

1. In an activated state the focus would possess its own astral body (or whatever SR5 likes to call it now) and thus would create situations where one astral body resides within another in cases where the person with the implanted focus turns astrally active as well. This causes certain problems with the basic rules that astral bodies - with the exception of Earth itself - cannot pass through other astral bodies. No proper rule precedence for dealing with this situation.
2. As a magical item with an explicit astral representation an implanted focus that is active becomes a precedence for targeting something with a spell that is implanted into a physical body. Implants can however normally not be targeted individually by spell casting ... particularly not when having Essence costs.
3. No. 2 automatically leads to the question whether or not such an focus implant would/should cause Essence costs. Something that simply cannot be answered with RAW since the lack of rules on that simply cannot be taken as to infer that being allowed by default. Otherwise I could certainly make that rather stupid assertion that any metahuman can fly because the rules do not explicitly deal with metahumans not being able to fly.
4. Even when ignoring No. 1, 2 and 3 you instantly have to deal with how the enclosing aura (while not astrally active) and astral body (while astrally active but not projecting) of the person with such an implant interferes with target acquisition for spell casting purposes while the focus is active

And these are just the basic problem fields I can think of right now without further in-depth analysis.

So - regardless of rules not explicitly stating size requirements for foci - I can certainly see why a GM would want to avoid such pit traps even if rating 6 foci could be created with the size of a needle head.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein May 19 2015, 05:09 PM

Also very valid points. Thanks Cochise.

Posted by: Shemhazai May 19 2015, 07:29 PM

Cochise,

To me,

1. It's occupying a cavity inside the meat body. It's not passing through.

2. It should be able to be targeted if the magician can get line of sight somehow. Maybe there's a reason why it's remained undetected.

3. No Essence loss unless it's written in a book.

4. No idea. It sounds related to 2.

Looks to me like the GM wants it to go away.

Posted by: Wothanoz May 19 2015, 07:50 PM

Implanted foci should be the realm of double digit initiates. Full stop.

Posted by: Cochise May 19 2015, 08:29 PM

While your personal solutions certainly might work for you, there's a whole lot of things that one could argue about and it would ultimately lead nowhere. For example:

1. The problem isn't about the meat body or a cavity therein. It's all about the astral body of an astrally perceiving mage who has an active implanted focus. There's simply no rule precedence that would create a cavity within the astral body and thus you'd face the astral body of a focus within the astral body of the mage. And that astral body of the focus can come into "existence" (upon activation) after the mage's astral body has established itself (upon activation of astral perception. And while there is well enough precedence for an aura within an aura the same simply cannot be said about an astral body within another.
2. Then you create an explicit disparity between non-magical implants (with and without essence cost) vs. magical implants in terms of valid target acquisition.
3. Based on what consideration? There certainly are implants that cause no Essence loss but all of them provide no discernible game benefits for the character in question. Implants with Essence cost do come with game benefits (making the Essence cost a balancing factor). Now how does the implanted focus compare? It's certainly a game benefit ... particularly if the implant process provides a degree of protection against magical attacks against the focus under certain conditions (see point No. 4 and in part No. 2). So from a balance standpoint your "not unless written in a book" doesn't work too well and since it's not written in any book that a metahuman indeed cannot fly, I could still argue that they indeed can fly "unless written in a book"
4. The question there is: How much of an interference should the engulfing aura / astral body be? The examples and rules for modifiers due to (packed) biomass simply don't work too well there

So don't get me wrong there: I'm not saying that you're incorrect with how you'd deal with the presented problems but - at least to me - the whole thing is way too problematic on various levels of meta-physics and game balance to warrant the hustle of making it available to player characters ... unless the GM is willing of dealing with all ramifications and the players accepting that this might ultimately cause changes to how things work within their game universe. And if I was the GM they'd also have to accept that "what goes around comes around" => NPCs would make use of it too on a more regular basis instead of encounters where something like that is a plot device.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein May 19 2015, 08:32 PM

Why? What makes you say that? I am curious. Since you can have foci that are tattoos (Love that by the way), and even Weapon Foci Cyberspurs (did that in 2nd Edition way back, and is still arguably doable in 3rd, 4th and 5th), what is the difference? I really don't see any myself.

Posted by: Wothanoz May 20 2015, 08:47 AM

Tattoo foci don't bother me: it's obvious that said foci is present, and it makes a good amount of sense. On the other hand, what Ehran did with Frosty's femur isn't just tattoo foci. It's something else, a pretty sophisticated magical device that wasn't readily apparent to anyone alive in the 6th world. Harley found out about it through a bit of sluething, of the sort of sluething an elf who has been nurturing a grudge since the 16th century can do.

That sort of device? Yeah, you can't build that without some real hefty initiation into secrets that existed thousands of years ago. And where ya gonna get that, huh?

Enchanting some cyber spurs? Meh, that's childs play. Well, not really, it should require a really good magician to pull off, given the complexity of the item, but it makes sense.

What Ehran did on the other hand was a completely different deal. It wasn't just a simple sustaining focus, though that would be something hard(though not impossible), but a focus that sustained multiple detection spells(the idea that one poster had, that it could detect ehran's thoughts isn't preposterous), as well as being perfectly attuned to Frosty's aura that it was indistinguishable. No one knew it was there, other than Ehran and Harley. That's some serious mojo, ya dig? Not something you can pull off with your buddies who practice proto-germanic paganism. Lodges are cool, but Ehran and Harley are from a completely different lodge, a lodge comparable to Dunkie and the west of the WizWorms. It's not exactly stuff you can pull off.

Posted by: freudqo May 20 2015, 09:20 AM

As much as I understand the OP's GM not wanting an implanted focus, for most reasons seen here, his take on power focus being big is really a house rule that's contradicting part of the fluff and the universe, and has very poor justification with SR's magic.

That said, I see no valid reason to refuse an implanted focus. I think Cochise nailed down the real lack of rules here. It shouldn't, IMHO, cost essence, since anything like a pacemaker, few nails or metal femur head you get after an accident never did, and it's been said repeatedly that foci could take almost any form. The real problem is tackled with astral form collision. That needs a call and discussion within the gaming group.

Mine would be that the focus astral form always protrude from it's owner astral form or aura when activated, let's say at the closest place from its implantation (femur head would appear at the ankle, teeth would look like a tusk, etc.). An aura reading test on the focus owner would probably apply to the focus too when not active (I'm not sure, this could make implanted focus quite useless somehow).

With this call, the only point of such a focus is if you are in a situation where the enemy wants to deprive you of your magical powers without outright killing you. In this case, the only point of such a focus is that mundane won't see it. So okay, you get away with it if mundanes strip you naked and take of all your jewelry. Now let's think of the fate of the guy whose power focus was active and witnessed by a mage when he was caught. Will NPC choose tedious surgery to carefully remove the net on this tibia?

Posted by: sk8bcn May 20 2015, 09:41 AM

She's not mage at this point of the plotline. She's just a corporate secretaire.

Ehran did desactivated it so that Harlequin couldn't follow that link (though there's a logic flaw in that).

And the story says that Ehran is wrong because Harlequin already did find Janet before (probably through the genetical-file stored in Sylvan's system from the first scenario of Harlequin -but this is personnal interpretation-).

Anyways, interesting thread overall.

Posted by: Garvel May 20 2015, 11:49 AM

Tongue-piercings as foci are perfectly fine within the rules. If an activated focus in the astrally active body of its owner would cause problems, these would cause the same problems too. But piercings don't cause problems, because if they did, it would be mentioned in the rule-part that explicitly allows them as foci.
From this we can deduce that "the astral body of a focus within the astral body of the mage" is possible without problems.

Posted by: Cochise May 20 2015, 12:12 PM

I'd object to that claim for two reasons:

• Different Editions treated that "differently" in terms of actually making explicit reference to such piercing-based foci.
• Regardless of which Edition actually made the particular reference the whole thing is still not described to a satisfactory degree as part of the overall meta-physics of SR-magic. I dare saying that whoever made the reference actually never thought about the ramifications beyond "cool idea".

That kind of inference is actually not permittable from a logic standpoint.



Subsequently your deduction is in fact a conclusion drawn from a false assertion which is logically "true" but not necessarily "right".

Posted by: Garvel May 20 2015, 01:15 PM

The problem here is that you try to use experiences you have from the real physical world ("One solid object can't be at the same place another solid object already is"), and then try to apply it to the astral plane of a fictional universe. But its a magic realm, it uses completely different laws of nature, and all we know about how it works, is what is stated in the rules.
We can try to deduce from the (sparse) descriptions we are given on how the astral plane works, but if our deductions contradict other points that the rules clearly state, then the rules win and not our derivations.

Here a quote from SR5 Basic book page 319 (since SR5 seems to be the most referenced in this thread)

No further descriptions how having the focus active hinders you while on astral perception. Here would have been the place to mentin problems that arise from using the piercing option. So at least in SR5 the problems you were worried about do not exist. One astral object inside another? Astral plane does not care.

The fact that the author may not have thought it through, isn't a big problem, since its fictional magic.
A 300 Nuyen grenade that contains hundred thousands Nuyens worth of monowire, thats a problem because we know the laws of market economy.
But we dont know the laws of a fictional astral plane.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein May 20 2015, 01:51 PM

Why wouldn't they? When my Cyberlogician was caught they took him into surgery and stripped him of almost all of his ware. Sucked, to be sure, but it gave me the chance to re-aspect his ware when he got out.

Posted by: freudqo May 20 2015, 02:11 PM

You'll notice I didn't say they wouldn't ^^ . My question is more about the "likelihood" that they'll do it. I'm trying to assess the advantages of having an implanted focus, with my call. Well, the advantage is that mundane won't detect it if you're naked. The disadvantage is that aware enemies wanting to steal it might use some gruesome method. They don't have to. But they'll have a shorter and easier time than going real precise surgery. Just that

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein May 20 2015, 02:29 PM

Well yes, that is indeed true. Just looking at the steps some Shadowrunners at my table take in that regard. Gruesome is a polite word in those circumstances.

Posted by: freudqo May 20 2015, 02:37 PM

Well, indeed, it's pretty rare that NPCs actually extract bone lacing through Ray Bradbury's skeleton short story method. PCs don't have this kind of delicacy. Makes one wonder.

Posted by: Shemhazai May 20 2015, 02:39 PM

In my view, if you swallow something and it comes out the other side, it was never a part of your body. If you implant a compartment, things in that compartment are not a part of your body, nor your astral form when astrally perceiving.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein May 20 2015, 02:53 PM

But you may not be implanting a compartment. You may be wrapping the femur with a fine titanium mesh that is a Focus. It is not in a separate compartment, but it is attached to your bone. While I see no issues with this, apparently others do.

Posted by: freudqo May 20 2015, 03:06 PM

Errr, aren't focus in your pocket able to be activated at will any more?

Posted by: Shemhazai May 20 2015, 03:11 PM

Oh, yes. I get that. My thoughts are that something that physically displaces your real body can be said to not occupy it's astral form either. I can definitely see how people wouldn't agree with my interpretation.

Of course, the Object Resistance of something like that would be 9, no?

Posted by: Shemhazai May 20 2015, 03:13 PM

It's not about activating, but whether they can actually be there in the first place while you're astrally perceiving.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein May 20 2015, 03:20 PM

Well, in theory, all Foci Attuned to you (and on your person) are present in the Astral (when projecting at least), should you desire them to be.

Posted by: freudqo May 20 2015, 03:36 PM

Errr, I remember that a focus in your pocket was in contact with your astral form and could be activated at will even if it didn't contact your body. So I don't see why something in your stomach wouldn't, or something in a bone compartment wouldn't.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein May 20 2015, 03:38 PM

Precisely.

Posted by: Cochise May 20 2015, 04:39 PM

Incorrect. I'm applying a phenomenon of two astrally active entities in one place under the explicit systematic premise that with the exception of Earth's astral body such bodies cannot pass through each other and the state of being engulfed by another astral body being a subset of that particular state.



Which actually was precisely my point: Without explicit rules on a level that provides a general description of the involved meta physical laws there's only what rules explicitly state. One particular "rule" suggests that it should not be possible while - depending on Edition - one reference might suggest otherwise. No final verdict possible that could be generalized to a degree that can be considered a "save assumption".



So that leaves us with "undecided" ... which for "whatever reason" was my initial verdict




Try to find the rules on passing of active astral entities through each other in SR5. It might turn out to be "fun".



Sorry, but "it's magic" is no carte blanche for inconsistent meta physics on rule level. I'll leave considerations of how "big" that problem is up to personal discretion.



We do know the the laws on the fictional astral plane as "good" as the game framework explains it. If that explanation is lacking we're facing "requires house ruling" territory where the GM has to consider the ramifications of his decision. Again something that I have already said.

One request: Please refrain from any further assumptions on which particular considerations I used as part of my explanations like you did with your first sentence in your last post. Because that is bound to turn into bad attempts of using non-existent clairvoyant powers that will cause this conversation to end up as something where you start fighting me on an "ad hominem" level.

Posted by: Beaumis May 20 2015, 07:15 PM

Actually, that's a myth created by the Shadowrun Novels, where mages duct tape spell locks to drones to make them invisible. By the rules, foci have always required direct contact to the magician's aura since first edition.

This point cannot be stressed enough. The Harlequin books outright say that neither Ehran nor Harlequin adhere to the rules in any way, shape or form. In the world, they simply use a different, way more "advanced" kind of magic to accomplish their goals. In terms of game mechanics they are GM Fiat. Using them as an example for anything in the SR world is a bad idea because more than any other character, they are literally the exceptions to the rules.

Posted by: freudqo May 20 2015, 07:34 PM

Maybe in first edition, but not since. In SR3, for sure a sustaining focus had to be with the target of certain spells, which could be someone else than the caster.

Posted by: Beaumis May 20 2015, 08:17 PM

You're right, my bad. I double checked and third actually has that exception. First and second handled spell locks as objects that could be bound to others but always had to be in contact with the aura of the owner (which was also the target).

Posted by: Sendaz May 20 2015, 08:23 PM

ninjaed

Posted by: freudqo May 20 2015, 08:27 PM

One could also quote anchoring and anchoring focus, which have been known to work precisely on other person than the caster.

Posted by: Cochise May 21 2015, 04:31 PM

It has been correctly pointed out - and you already acknowledged - that the "myth" isn't a "myth" depending on game edition. I'll go further and say that on the meta physics level of SR magic "contact to the magician's aura" was certainly not required for focus usage ever since first edition. The whole "aura contact" thing was (and still is) wonky on several levels and regularly causes questions / debates on how far said aura "extends" beyond the physical body's shape and what actually establishes said "contact" between physical focus, aura and astral body of the focus on one side of the equation and the magician's aura on the other side.

And it's actually quite easy to prove you wrong with SR1:

p. 79, SR1, Spell Locks
Spell Locks are power focuses with a Rating of 1 made for a single purpose: to lock a spell onto a target permanently. A magician must attach the focus physically to the target after the spell has succeeded. It can be stuck into a pocket, worn, hung, nailed on, or whatever. The magician who cast the spell need not be the one who attaches the lock, but only a magician can do it. Once in place, the lock maintains the spell automatically drawing power from Astral Space.
There are drawbacks to using spell locks. If a magician removes the lock from a target, the spell is broken. A mundane cannot remove a spell lock, he cannot even touch. It is in another dimension as far as he is concerned. As long as the focus is working, a thread of astral energy connects it to the spell's caster. This can be traced through Astral Space, becoming a material link that makes the caster vulnerable to Ritual Sorcery. Magician's do not leave these things lying around!

The only contact requirement there actually concerns physical bodies, not auras ... with the usual debate about what exactly establishes the physical contact since they can be put in pockets (which introduces a meta-physical concept of "physical contact" that is as flexible as the "part of the target / no part of the target" concept for spell casting). Spell Locks IIRC worked the same in SR2 but I'll spare myself quoting that implementation as well.

=> 3rd Edition with its sustaining focuses certainly was not the "exception". The latter were just relabeled spell locks with four major changes:

1. They explicitly required a Force Rating equal or above the Force Rating of the sustained spell
2. The sustaining focus actually had to be brought into physical contact (not aura contact!) to the physical body / item it was supposed to sustain the spell on prior to the spell being cast
3. physical removal ended the spell but virtually anyone could physically remove the focus, even mundanes.
4. The focus owner had the explicit right to deactivate the focus (with an act of will) at any time with no explicit or implicit requirement for physical (or aura) contact to the focus

The anchoring focus took the concept of spell locks / sustaining focuses even further and most certainly didn't require physical or aura contact to the magician and even the physical contact requirement to an anchored spell's target is not as strict as it was for sustaining focuses: You certainly could put an anchor focus with an anchored directional, LOS-based detection spell (e.g. detect enemy) and a combat spell (manabolt) on a room's floor and the anchor would cast the combat spell against any "enemy" who came into the detection spell's "range", provided LOS existed and the "enemy" was successfully detected.

Posted by: Machiavelli May 22 2015, 12:14 PM

"another dimension"? Whoa, SR changed a lot since first edition.

Posted by: Wothanoz May 22 2015, 06:52 PM

Uh. Yeah.

Posted by: Sendaz May 22 2015, 07:28 PM

Indeed....

Some of the madmages down here in R&D have toyed with the concept of making a small safehouse into a spell lock to be able to activate it and take advantage of this disappearing into some sort of pocket dimension ability.

However the results to date have been.... messy.

So for now the Bermuda Bandit Bungalows remains elusive.

Posted by: Beaumis May 23 2015, 05:46 PM

As I've said before, about the Myth you are correct. That was me working from memory and falling in the "we always played it like that, therefore that's how it worked" trap. For that, I apologize. However, the passage you quoted can be read very differently. There is a bit of an evolution to spell locks as I read them, so bear with me for a moment, please.

For completeness sake, I always read rules with a "specific beats general" approach in mind. All editions of Shadowrun have contained a variation of the "if removed from person, focus deactivates" rule. (The wording actually barely changed from 1st to 4th edition. It's kinda hilarious actually.)

In 1st edition, Spell locks were simply weird. They were powerfoci, but weren't. Whether or not they were bound with a specific spell or not was unclear and they basically teleported into nothingness once bound. Mundanes couldn't even freaking touch them, but any magician of the same tradition could freely deactivate another magician's focus. What deactivation did was equally unclear. Did it turn off the spell but allow for reactivation or did it actually break the spell? No one knows. (most played it in the former way tho. Like the one ring. Now I'm invisible and now I'm not. Now I'm levitating, now I'm not.)

Enter second edition, which was slightly more clear but still wonky. It was now clear that recasting a spell meant rebonding the focus, but still after bonding the spell lock could be freely moved and placed by a magician of the same tradition. However, now they were even invisible to mundanes on top of being untouchable (peasants!). Even cooler still, the creator (and the book is unclear if that means the bonder or the enchanter) can activate and deactivate the thing at will. From the other end of the world. And it was still unclear what that meant.

Then third edition came around and finally turned spell locks into a proper focus and not an "I'm better, peasant" object. They were attuned to one spell as before and you could change the spell by rebonding the focus. However, now you had to recast the spell instead of turning your invisibility on and off. They also finally clarified what deactivating the focus entailed. It ended the spell and you had to recast it.

Finally, fourth edition defined them as a spell category focus and brought them in line with the other foci types. They could now contain any spell of acategory without rebonding and also lost their "must be in contact with target" special rule and with that were brought in line with the usual "in contact with magician" rule.

Where does this all lead? Well, first of all, to illustrate the point that looking at spell locks for the metaphysics of Shadowrun is a really bad idea. The changes made to them were first and foremost balancing issues that simply needed adressing. They started out as basically quickening on crack without the metamagic and with monetary cost and ended up as a new type of focus. They started out as powerfoci, made a detour through "undefined" and ended up as spell category foci (which in turn became spell foci because the later got removed as a foci type).

On the other hand, every edition's spell lock required the thing to be in contact with something. If it was a magician, he could remove or activate/deactivate it freely. If it was a mundane, it couldn't be moved. Specific rules may have been lacking, but the general rule was always there. (P. 79, 137, 190 and 199, for 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th edition respectively. Yes I actually took the books off the shelve. Kinda miss the art style to be honest.)




1. You have to keep the overall changes to force in mind. Prior to third, force was your dice pool and therefore limited itself. Starting with third, sorcery was your dice pool and force arbitrarily chosen, but set your threshold. This change reflects a systemic change above a change to spell locks.
2. This focus always had to be in physical contact to something when activated. The only thing that changed was that in third you had to cast the spell at the same time as placing the focus, while previously, you could cast the spell into the focus first and place the focus later. The active focus always had to be in contact with the target.
3. True. Spell locks were no longer quickening in disguise. However, this was a balance change. Prior to this, a vengeful mage could put a "Decrease Intelligence" spell on an enemy street sam and bacially turn him into a plant most of the time. And he or his mundane friends couldn't do anything about it. They couldn't even see the damn thing. Because he's a peasant, that's why.
[Come to think of it, imagine if Sam had put a control actions spell lock on Jason in Find Your Own Truth. He'd have saved himself a lot of trouble.]
4. True.

I am not entirely opposed to your concept of "body over aura". There are good reasons for it, such as the fact that you could cast invisibility into a spell lock that was duct taped to a drone. There is no aura in sight, yet the spell works. However, there are good reasons against it too. The clothing argument doesn't hold water because if clothing impeded aura's, armor would immunize people to mana spells. (I can't remember where, but there was a writeup on that topic somewhere in the early magic rules. Bottomline: aura's extending beyond clothing because balance.) More importantly however is the fact that a magician's body is immune to mana spells when projecting or the fact that you need foci to be in active before you enter astral space, not after. This makes a very convincing argument for aura over body, because the aura leaves the body during projection. (Rule in 4th, earlier too unless I'm working off ooold house rules again. Kinda tired to check, so 4th).

Anyway, in all fairness sake, I did type up a long thing while very tired to end up saying: "I kinda agree, but want to say x". It probably reads like a bit of a rant. For that, I'm sorry, but I don't want to delete it. So take it with that kind of salt.

Edit: I'd like to add that Spell locks are likely to change again in a future 6th edition, just to fix the "Force 1 + Reagents/Edge" Problem. Not because it plays havoc with SRs metaphysics, but because most GMs go like "Yeah, No, Fuck you". When players try to pull that one, despite it being perfectly legal and seemingly intended by the rules as written. It's a balance issue above all else.

Posted by: Cochise May 24 2015, 11:19 AM

It's not my concept. It's one of the concepts as laid out in the SR magic metaphysics framework that it's actually quite well defined within those meta physics - at least in comparison to other aspects, particularly unlike the "aura contact" concept that to me largely seems to exist more in the mind of players instead of the game rules themselves.



I didn't make a case for "body over aura" instead of "aura contact". I simply question the correctness of "aura contact" actually being the determining factor as you suggested. So my reference to clothing was not much an argument at all. It actually was a reminder about the general lack of a proper definition of "aura contact" within the SR magic metaphysics that would allow determining whether or not "aura contact" is actually established.

Your reference to armor / clothing acting as an immunization against mana based spells - to me - is not so much a question of "aura contact" but rather "spell targeting requirements" where you manipulate mana at a specific location and SR magic using a (often blurred) concept of "is part of the target" vs. "is not part of the target" in order to determine whether or not the overall target can be targeted with a certain spell. The most obvious example of such discrepancies are indirect illusion spells and telekinetic manipulation spells:

1. A person under the mana-based indirect illusion spell of "Invisibility" turns "invisible" for observers who do not achieve spell resistance. This includes all carried clothing and gear at the time of the spell's casting because they are considered as "being part of target" on an abstract (metaphysical) level. Now the interesting parts here are:
   
   1. The person under spell later on picks up a gun. Now for spell casting purposes of a new spell the gun would be part of the target. But as far as the original spell - which by definition of SR magic is "not intelligent" - is concerned that gun is not part of the original target and thus should not become "invisible" to beholders that failed their spell resistance. Things get totally wonky if the picked up item is small enough to be put in / under gear that the "invisible" person originally wore.
   2. In case that the person under the spell puts down gear or involuntarily loses things the standard assumption would be that these items are no longer part of the overall target and subsequently become visible again. But what about cases where the person under the spell picks up such an item that was originally part of the spell's effect.
2. The (physical) Levitation spell when targeted at a person seems to automatically include all worn clothing / gear. There's no indication that the spell only targets the personal and the rest is just moved due to its physical attachment to the person. Now the interesting part here is that in this situation the spell targeting works by again making a difference between "part of the target" vs. "not part of the target" ... but that differentiation can rather arbitrarily change depending on what the caster wants to achieve: A caster is now allowed to target a handheld weapon (or other visible gear) as separate entities when trying to levitate things.

~erm~ No?! A magician's physical body is not immune to mana spells while projecting. Any mana-based spell that is cast against the physical body only has to fulfill spell targeting requirements (mainly being on the same plane and having LOS or touch). Effects caused by a spell against the physical body will even affect the astral body of the projecting magician, explicitly so for damage and healing and any other effect by inference of the former effects.

Sidenote: The damage and healing transfer between physical and astral body actually makes one phenomenon described for a particular situation while projecting strictly impossible. The (SR3) rules say that should the physical body of a projecting mage die the projecting mage is able to stay in his projected state for the remainder of the time limit set by his Essence value. Now the bug in that rule is quite obvious:

"Death" in SR(3) always occurs based on some form of damage and the subsequent marking off on the condition monitor. So if the physical body suffers any form of D level damage that damage automatically transfers to the astral body as well. But whenever an astral body of a projecting mage suffers D level stun damage the astral body is explicitly disrupted from astral space while D level physical damage would render him unconscious at least (makes you wonder why he isn't disrupted by physical damage) and doesn't even look at the "instant death" situation with a condition monitor where even over flow is marked off. Subsequently the whole "gonna haunt you for X hours" idea was "cool" but is virtually impossible by the nature of the actual rules and what they establish as meta-physics for projection.



This again has nothing to do with "aura contact". Actually, by (SR3)RAW the only focus type that requires an activation prior to entering astral space is the sustaining focus due to the "no exclusive magic action during projection" rule. For SR3 there's only one thing that - by implication - could demand an activation prior to astral projection: The description that astral bodies of foci and fetishes do travel with the mage. Now the problem there is that astral bodies for foci only come into "physical" existence while the focus is active but technically a fetish doesn't even have one and more importantly: There's no rule definition for any such activation of fetishes prior to usage. And that doesn't even touch the subject of taking away an activated focus from an astrally projecting mage ... like during astral combat with the disarm combat option that - strictly speaking - would deactivate a weapon focus and leave us with the question where the focus goes within the astral world.



I certainly won't go into details on where and how SR4 rules screwed up on the whole "Astral Space" meta-physics and the presentation of associated rules but as before: Your convincing argument of "aura over body" fails with regards to the point where healing - including magic spells - can be used on the physical body to heal the shared damage states. Additionally, under SR3 the aura of the physical body actually never left the body during projection, neither explicitly nor by implication.



No harm done



Just as with the initial question concerning focus sizes and their feasibility as implants: The responsible developers are not doing us favors with not thinking over and describing the metaphysics of SR magic with enough detail and additionally not looking at the balance ramifications of rather basic game elements. Of course "it's magic" can serve as an excuse for pretty much everything but that particular guideline should be limited to "plot devices" instead of popping up on such a regular basis.

Posted by: Tiralee May 24 2015, 11:54 AM

...Coming back to the original poster's question,

Hmmm, well, it could simply the limitiation of the actual foci designer - they might not have the skill to make it smaller (or lacks the necessary artistry, etc, to make it "work" in the size/form desired.) It could also be a good point for the GM to drop hints that his current contact is great at amulets, but frankly, is a bit limited and the player might want to do a bit of looking about to find the desired outcome.

Or take enchanting and jewellry-making:)

Implanted foci in the form of Weapon Foci have been cannon since 3rd. Although if I was GM'ing the mage, I don't think that a Dikoted razor spur would really fit the feel of the character, but eh, they paid for the karma and the essence and the magic loss, so it's legit, just a bit meh.


-Tir:)

Posted by: Beaumis May 24 2015, 01:52 PM

I never came across it before, so I attributed it to you. My bad. Also, we really need to limit the scope of this in terms of edition... .

Yes actually. At least in second edition, it does. This may never have been the intended effect, but by the metaphysics of SR, its how it worked.

"The next step beyond astral perception is actual projection, in which the magician's aura "separates" from his body and is able to move about freely and independently for some time.
[...]
While in trance, the magician's body is dead to the world;
[...]
Until the aura returns, the physical body is comatose." (P. 146, SR2 Core)

"The reason has to do with how a spell works. As a spell is being cast, the magician's senses are opened up partially to the astral place. The magician, because of the working of the astral forces that power the spell, is able to see the aura of the target. This allows him to align or synchronize his aura with that of the target, permitting the astral energy shaped by the caster to leap between them, through astral space, much as a spark of electricity jumps between two properly polarized points.
[...]
The line of sight restriction is still a powerful one for these types of spells. if the target's aura cannot be seen, it cannot be hit. Some frightening possibilities are circumvented because a living aura radiates a short distance from the being: enemies in sealed combat armor, with no part of the body showing, can still be attacked because the aura extends past the armor." (P. 149 SR2 Core)

If you combine those two rules, one says that the Aura leaves the body, the other that the Aura is a requirement for Mana Spells to work. Hence, a projecting Magician's body is immune to Mana Spells.

SR3 established the concept of the Astral Form instead of the Aura leaving the body, but in second, that's how it worked. As a side note, the book actually mentions the healing effect between physical body and projected magician as an "occult phenomenon". Which kinda translates into "Yeah, we know it doesn't fit, but we don't want to separate condition monitors for projecting magician's because balance." In my opinion. You are right that it is wonky in terms of the metaphysics of the world.

I would venture the guess that the understanding of aura contact stems directly from the above understanding of how magic works. Through contact to auras. I do see your point about invisibility. However, I see that less of a metaphysical problem and more as one of terminology. Mana Invisibility shouldn't be called that because it really has nothing to do with "seeing" in that sense and everything with perceiving. I always understood it as a sort of "someone else's problem defense" from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. People actually see you fine, they just don't register you. That's why it doesn't work on technological stuff.
While the example of the gun or smaller objects is every bit as wonky as you say, this is true for each and every RPG ever. Invisibility is sort of the staple concept of "its magic" because it is something that we, in the real world, cannot do. We know it involves breaking the light but we don't know hot to achieve that or the properties that such a way would entail. Hence we "wing" it.

I do see why you would question the aura implication of focus activation though. After rereading some of the previous editions, the only hard rules I can find require "close proximity" to the magician or target's body. As I said before, I guess that combined with the fact that auras radiate beyond clothing lead to the conclusion that foci required auras.

Posted by: Cochise May 24 2015, 02:40 PM

I guess I deserved getting the part about targeting in 2nd Ed thrown against me there ~g~ That's what happens when you think about what creates a specific picture in player's minds and then forget to mention where they get it from. I'll give you that one could take this as the basis for the magician's physical body indeed being "immune" to mana-based spells while projecting (as well as an indicator for focus usage being dependent on auras in the general case as well). However, this part about spell casting certainly doesn't establish "aura contact" (as opposed to [subconscious] visibility of auras) as the deciding factor for focus usage. Furthermore ...



... that "occult phenomenon" automatically creates one of those exceptions that leads to a point where the rule about targeting mana-based spells based on a subconscious perception of the target's aura turns into a general case and the physical body of a projecting mage turns into the special case that goes counter the general case.



You're looking at the wrong part of the dilemma I tried to point out with the Invisibility spell. To me it was never a case of improper terminology because I quite well understood what an "illusion" is with regards to seeing or not seeing things. For me it was all about the relation of items "being part of a larger target" in one situation and then "no longer being part of a larger target" in the next with regards to targeting and successfully casting a spell against that "larger target"... as well as "never having been part of the larger target" and "being re-introduced into that larger target" while said "larger target" is under the spell's effect. Neither "aura contact" nor "physical / body contact" as concepts are sufficient to determine if and what is supposed to happen there. The "best" concept there (which still doesn't provide answers for everything) is "part of an (abstract) entity that serves as target at the time of the spell being cast".



Actually the way it was described in SR prior to SR4 (where they literally made Improved Invisibility bend light after the [bad] German translation of SR3 had done the same) it worked pretty well simply because it was an (indirect) illusion spell that pretty much worked like the SEP field generator from Hitchhiker's guide. While the mana-based version simply removed the undesired picture within the individual observer's mind the physical one created a different sensory input on the sensors of observers that "see" things ... where "seeing" is again more of an abstract and over-arching concept than a physical description of how physics phenomena like electromagnetic waves are turned into some form of signal that creates the "visuals".



So my conclusion with regards to a potential SR6 is: They should clear the house there