Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Channeling

Posted by: Brazila Oct 7 2004, 12:18 AM

I don't have my books with me, so forgive me, if there is an obvious answer to this, but I was wondering if there is a limit on what spirits you can channel. One of my PCs was talking about channeling a watcher, which I thought was crazily pimped, and said that I was sure there was a rule against it, but he said he could find nothing in the book on it. Or what about an ally spirit, you lose all remaining services when you channel but ally's don't have "services" so that could be cheesed too then??

Posted by: mfb Oct 7 2004, 12:23 AM

it's a technicality, but Channelling is described as working on any spirit that owes services to the mage. watchers work on a time basis, not a services basis, ergo...

Posted by: Zenmaxer Oct 7 2004, 01:38 AM

:: grins :: there was a terrible, terrible glitch involving this and blood spirits, which I believe do technically owe service to the mage.... though I am not sure, thinking about it, if this is truly legitimate given that they also have no specific service count, that I can think of.

Posted by: mfb Oct 7 2004, 01:43 AM

bzzzzt! shoulda used a lifeline, zen. blood spirits use services just like elementals and nature spirits. MitS page 134, third sentence under Summoning Blood Spirits.

Posted by: Zenmaxer Oct 7 2004, 01:47 AM

:: laughs :: so I'm lazy and optimistic. I really wanted to believe that they'd seen channeled blood spirits coming.

Posted by: mfb Oct 7 2004, 01:49 AM

*shudder* not only have i seen it coming, i've (or, well, one of my characters has) seen it arrive.

Posted by: SilverWolf_assassin Oct 7 2004, 01:55 AM

Braz,
Don't let them use watchers or allied spirits. If not for game effect, for balance.

SlotJOCKEY, ultimate utility character
"I am just here to teach the children"

Posted by: Kagetenshi Oct 7 2004, 02:18 AM

Let them use Watchers, but divide their intelligence by 10 minus Watcher's force, to a minimum of division by two.

~J

Posted by: mfb Oct 7 2004, 02:30 AM

eh? why?

Posted by: Fortune Oct 7 2004, 02:33 AM

I would assume to reflect a Watcher's inherent stupidity.
,
I think a good rule is to allow a Spirit to be Channeled only if they actually owe a Service, as mentioned above.

Posted by: Jason Farlander Oct 7 2004, 02:54 AM

You can't channel watchers, because they dont owe services - they exist for specific timespans. Note that the things that watchers can do are specifically labeled as "tasks" rather than "services."

Fortune: not only is that a good rule, that is the canon rule. Pg 109, T:AL "The initiate must have a spirit that owes him services present in astral space and have it come into contact with his aura."

Posted by: Zenmaxer Oct 7 2004, 03:06 AM

<stupidity>

What if you told your Ally spirit to believe it owed you a service? In Harlequin's Back it specifically states that the way a character beliefs and views on magic directly affects his\her\its interaction with it.

</stupidity>

Posted by: Jason Farlander Oct 7 2004, 03:08 AM

I think you would also have to convince *yourself* that this lie you just made up is true. Which could be difficult.

Posted by: Fortune Oct 7 2004, 03:35 AM

QUOTE (Jason Farlander)

Fortune: not only is that a good rule, that is the canon rule. Pg 109, T:AL "The initiate must have a spirit that owes him services present in astral space and have it come into contact with his aura."

I didn't recall the actual canon wording...thanks.

I do seem to recall quite a few heated Dumpshock debates (on the old forums?) about Channeling Ally Spirits, but I don't remember this specific ruling being introduced to the argument. If it had been, quite a few flames could have been avoided, as it's pretty cut-and-dried.

Posted by: mfb Oct 7 2004, 03:36 AM

as i recall, it was mentioned several times. didn't do much flame-quelling.

Posted by: Fortune Oct 7 2004, 04:19 AM

Blame my onsetting senility.

Posted by: blakkie Oct 7 2004, 09:50 AM

QUOTE (Jason Farlander)

I think you would also have to convince *yourself* that this lie you just made up is true. Which could be difficult.

Is the question, Alex, "what is use #23 for casting Alter Memory on yourself"?

Posted by: Canid13 Oct 7 2004, 10:09 AM

I'd personally not allow an Ally spirit to be used for channeling, but I guess that's my own view on it.

And Watchers, that's a no-no.

One thought though, could a psionic mage channel a thought form? MITS states that the Psionic is limited by what he thinks is doable with the powers of the mind. Well, if they can conjur then they have no problems with that, and I personally don't see why a thought form couldn't be channeled - think of it as an ally lending you his strength to fight a specific foe.

Posted by: Zenmaxer Oct 7 2004, 10:23 AM

:: bows before Blakkie:: nice shot, mate.

I think I'd allow channeling of thought forms, because frankly psions get gimped hard enough as it is, and really deserve some small bit of power.

Posted by: Cochise Oct 7 2004, 01:25 PM

Just my 0.02¥:

1. Watchers do not owe services => no channeling them

2. Allies do not explicitly owe "services" (as game term) either. But they must obey any order their master gives to them, which can be seen as an infinite number of services until they gain freedom or are banished. A mage wants to channel his ally: Sure go ahead. The powers of allies are meager in comparison to other spirits (3D movement sucks in comparison to a levitate spell, immunity normal weaposn is provided by any spirit that can be channeled, mind link won't work, just as materialization) and to top it all: Once the channeling ends, all owed services are used up, the spirit becomes "free" and thus may either return to his metaplane or become a "free spritit" => Extremely "safe" way of setting your ally free

3. Bound "free spirits". They explicitly owe an infinite number of services. But what's true for allies is true for them as well: They'll automatically become free after channeling end. Given the fact that the majority of bound "free spirits" hold a serious grudge against their master (who stole their freedom), this is going to be a rather dangerous thing, since once the spirit has regained his freedom he cannot be rebound by the same magaician ever after ...

So options 2 and 3 should only be the last resort, when everything else fails

Posted by: Kagetenshi Oct 7 2004, 01:34 PM

If you were quick you could just rebind the free spirit.

~J

Posted by: mfb Oct 7 2004, 01:38 PM

thought forms owe services, so there shouldn't be anything preventing a psion from channelling it, if the psion knows channelling. just think of it as reinforcing the flesh with psionic power.

i don't think the master could re-bind the spirit. once the master releases a free spirit, he can never bind it again. the question is, does using up all of its services, infinite though they may be, count as releasing it?

Posted by: Kagetenshi Oct 7 2004, 01:58 PM

QUOTE (Cochise)

1. Watchers do not owe services => no channeling them

2. Allies do not explicitly owe "services" (as game term) either. But they must obey any order their master gives to them, which can be seen as an infinite number of services until they gain freedom or are banished.

I also forgot to mention: your argument for Allies applies to Watchers as well.

~J

Posted by: Canid13 Oct 7 2004, 02:13 PM

QUOTE (Cochise)

immunity normal weaposn is provided by any spirit that can be channeled

Actually no. Immunity/Normal Weapons only comes from Great Form spirits. It is explicitly mentioned in the rules. And it's only Force, not twice Force as usual.

Still, it means you get to Grade 2 and conjur a Great Form Force 6 Fire Elemental with +1 Reach. Then you channel it and gain the normal powers of the spirit (including immunity to fire) and cos it's a Great Form you gain hardened armour 6/6 which adds directly to worn armour AND +1 Reach and +6 to all your physical stats.

Talk about your nasty combatants.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Oct 7 2004, 02:15 PM

Hermetic Troll combat mage with dikoted polearm, anyone?

~J

Posted by: Rock-Steady Oct 7 2004, 02:28 PM

QUOTE (Canid13 @ Oct 7 2004, 02:13 PM)

and cos it's a Great Form you gain hardened armour 6/6 which adds directly to worn armour AND +1 Reach and +6 to all your physical stats.

Talk about your nasty combatants.

Ermmm.

Immunity to normal weapons, not hardened armor. Thats a huge difference.

With hardened armor you can still get hurt by APDS/AV ammo. With immunity you even havent to care 'bout that.

Posted by: Cochise Oct 7 2004, 02:31 PM

QUOTE (Kagetenshi)

If you were quick you could just rebind the free spirit.

~J

Nope:
Problem one: If it's the ally that has gone free, you'd have to know his true name .. And such a ritual still takes it time .. Time that you don't have, since the spirit can go to his metaplane instantly or deciede to attack you before you can even start your binding ritual ...
Problem two: If it's a bound "free spirit" that regains it's freedom, it cannot be rebound by the same magician (see MitS for details)

QUOTE

I also forgot to mention: your argument for Allies applies to Watchers as well.

Nope ... since the "services" of watcher do actually have a game term: "task". The loophole for allies is the fact that there is no game term mentioned that decribes their "services" ...

QUOTE (Canid13)

Actually no. Immunity/Normal Weapons only comes from Great Form spirits. It is explicitly mentioned in the rules. And it's only Force, not twice Force as usual.

Oh, I forgot about that ... Right ... That makes the channeling of an ally even less interesting, now doesn't it?

Less power at larger price ...

Posted by: mfb Oct 7 2004, 03:01 PM

not really. Immunity/Normal Weapons is hardened armor, for almost all intents and purposes. the only thing against which it doesn't act as hardened armor is killing hands, weapon foci, and elemental manips. an important difference, to be sure, but it's still nice to be able to ignore most small-arms fire and some large-arms fire.

Posted by: Cochise Oct 7 2004, 03:10 PM

QUOTE (mfb)

If you follow the wording of those powers instead of what the FAQ tries to tell you, there is another significant difference:

Hardened Armor explicitly requires the base damage of an attack to exceed its rating => burst / full auto modifiers do never enter the equation. Arguably modifiers from ammo types don't enter the equation either

Immunity (normal weapons) however only references the power of the attack, thus burst / full auto modifiers of power do make a difference there. And when it comes to ammo types, it's only armor piercing stuff that's explicitly counted as "treated as standard ammo". i.e. APDS and AV ammo treated as standard. Explo ammo not ...

Posted by: mfb Oct 7 2004, 03:18 PM

eh, i usually follow the FAQ. it's probable, at least in this case, that Immunity was meant to act as hardened armor against whatever the power applied to.

Posted by: Cochise Oct 7 2004, 03:20 PM

QUOTE (mfb)

eh, i usually follow the FAQ. it's probable, at least in this case, that Immunity was meant to act as hardened armor against whatever the power applied to.

If so, then why have two different powers that do exactly the same?

Posted by: blakkie Oct 7 2004, 03:20 PM

QUOTE (Cochise @ Oct 7 2004, 03:10 PM)

Hardened Armor explicitly requires the base damage of an attack to exceed its rating => burst / full auto modifiers do never enter the equation. Arguably modifiers from ammo types don't enter the equation either

What you would base excluding ammo type modifiers on? At best canon seems to not mention that, and since it explicitly excludes burst/full auto modifiers but not ammo modifers, i had always assumed/ruled they DID count towards breeching vehicle armour. It wasn't just not being mentioned. I also factored in why it made sense to exclude the power increase from multiple slugs, the idea that 100 misquitos slamming against your windshield serially was nor more damaging than than a single misquito hitting. However with EX-EX, for example, it's a much bigger misquito so the increased size has bearing on the damage.......ok bad analogy, but i got my point across?

Posted by: mfb Oct 7 2004, 03:22 PM

because they're not exactly the same. hardened armor is useless against killing hands, weapon foci, and elemental manips. attacks from these sources are common enough in SR that the differentiation is important. as for why the powers would've been worded differently in the first place, it's probably because it was a mistake. i mean, for pete's sake, there was an entire section in M&M titled "chemestry"; dropping a phrase is not outside the realm of possibility.

as far as the ammo modifiers, the wording in the book is "burst-fire or anything else". that includes auto-fire, EX-X ammo, etcetera. APDS and AV ammo are later referenced as halving the hardened armor power (it's on the next page, so it's easy to miss).

Posted by: blakkie Oct 7 2004, 03:38 PM

QUOTE (mfb @ Oct 7 2004, 03:22 PM)

as far as the ammo modifiers, the wording in the book is "burst-fire or anything else". that includes auto-fire, EX-X ammo, etcetera. APDS and AV ammo are later referenced as halving the hardened armor power (it's on the next page, so it's easy to miss).

Going back to pg. 132 of BBB [in my printing] it says "Vehicle armor is hardened armor, meaning that it can deflect all damage from weapons with a Power (modified by the vehicle's Body, but not by burst or autofire) equal to or less than the Armor Rating." That is why i treated it that way for vehicles. Perhaps it was an error to handle it the same way for spirits, BUT if you take that "or anything else" on page 263 to be all inclusive such that you now exclude ammo bonuses why wouldn't you include cyber/bio/magic Str modifiers, dikoting, etc. in the exclusions? Especially given that APDS/AVM ammuniton function the same way as against vehicles? (EDIT: and set the precident that ammo type can influence whether or not the armour is breeched)

Posted by: mfb Oct 7 2004, 03:45 PM

because, for melee weapons, (Str+whatever) is the base power of the weapon. however, you're right--the descriptions of hardened armor in SR3 and CC don't include ammo type modifiers. sounds like something worth asking for clarification on.

Posted by: Shockwave_IIc Oct 7 2004, 03:56 PM

QUOTE (Kagetenshi)

Hermetic Troll combat mage with dikoted polearm, anyone?

~J

Na just Shed loads of dice and close combat thanks.

Martial Arts rules, nice idea, badly implimanted.

Posted by: blakkie Oct 7 2004, 04:01 PM

QUOTE (mfb)

Ah, but it still is strictly speaking a modifier.

And what about the dikoting?

In any event yes, i do agree there is a bit of gray that requires some interpretation to come up with it one way or another. If you felt the need to get it clarified for strict canon so be it, although there are a multitude of other places i'd spend the effort on clarifying first. I, as well as the people i have played with i guess, have always felt more than comfortable interpreting it as explosive rounds' extra power counts towards breeching armour. It flat out makes sense to me. *shrug*

Posted by: Cochise Oct 7 2004, 04:06 PM

QUOTE (Shockwave_IIc)

Na just Shed loads of dice and close combat thanks.

Exchange Polearm with morning star (reach 2, single handed, whip-based weapon) and use a riot shield in your off-hand and some-one with close combat will not succeed as easily

QUOTE

Martial Arts rules, nice idea, badly implimanted.

That is true however

Posted by: mfb Oct 7 2004, 04:07 PM

eh, a modifier would be something like dikote. the damage code listed in the stat block is the base damage. just because the base damage is variable, depending on who's wielding it, doesn't make it not base.

Posted by: Canid13 Oct 7 2004, 04:17 PM

QUOTE (official website FAQ)

When a spirit or critter with Immunity (Normal Weapons) is attacked, do you only compare double its Essence to the base Power of the weapon (regardless of modifiers, as with the Hardened Armor power), or do you also count modifiers to the Power from burst fire, ammo type, extra successes, etc?
Treat the Immunity power as you would the Hardened Armor power--only use the base Power of the weapon, unmodified by burst fire, ammo type, etc.

Whether or not the wording is different in the printing we, collectively, have in front of us doesn't matter in my view. The FAQ should be taken as gospel.

Having said that, I do allow some 'or anything' to make a different. Explosive ammo is one example, as it's a more powerful slug which the armour isn't spec'd to deal with. But this is my own personal house rule which goes against canon, and Cannon (Companion).

Just out of curiosity, who here has the very latest printings of the various books?

As for dikote, I've always treated it as changing the base damage itsself so I allow it.

Posted by: mfb Oct 7 2004, 04:19 PM

many posters here do not, in fact, take the FAQ as gospel, however. i tend to, but others disagree. (i call those people 'sore losers', but that's because i'm an ass!)

that brings up an interesting point, though. apparently, the FAQ writer believes that ammo type is irrelevant to the hardened armor power.

Posted by: Cochise Oct 7 2004, 04:25 PM

QUOTE (Canid13)

Whether or not the wording is different in the printing we, collectively, have in front of us doesn't matter in my view. The FAQ should be taken as gospel.

Most definitely not ... The Gospels are the rules as written. Any significant change to them are reflected by Errata (which is something different than FAQ).

FAQ do have the tendency to reflect only the opinion of it's maker and have very often shown significant errors when looking at the text and verifying the answers with the rules ... This is just one of those situations ...

As for mfb calling people who do not see the FAQ as Gospel "sore losers" and that being the result of him being an ass ... I can't argue against the results of his self-reflection ...

Posted by: mfb Oct 7 2004, 04:34 PM

ah, i'll probably change my tune when the FAQ says something i don't like.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Oct 7 2004, 04:45 PM

Then take a look at the FAQ’s statement on invisibility and Sensors.

~J

Posted by: mfb Oct 7 2004, 05:04 PM

LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU

edit: joking aside, i don't have a real problem with the FAQ's take on invis vs sensors. their basic stance is, "it's up to the GM, here are some things to consider". can't argue with that!

Posted by: Zenmaxer Oct 8 2004, 01:09 AM

QUOTE (mfb)

many posters here do not, in fact, take the FAQ as gospel, however. i tend to, but others disagree. (i call those people 'sore losers', but that's because i'm an ass!)

I'm with you on every point, because I'm an ass too.

Posted by: Fortune Oct 8 2004, 01:56 AM

QUOTE (Zenmaxer @ Oct 8 2004, 11:09 AM)

QUOTE (mfb @ Oct 7 2004, 11:19 AM)

many posters here do not, in fact, take the FAQ as gospel, however. i tend to, but others disagree. (i call those people 'sore losers', but that's because i'm an ass!)

I'm with you on every point, because I'm an ass too.

Since the FAQ is compiled by the current Line Developer for Shadowrun, I think its answers should be considered as being fairly official. Not that I necessarily agree with everything contained therein, but that can be said about canon as well.

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 8 2004, 06:26 AM

Other than the fact that everyone has now officially gotten off topic, here is my opinion.
1. Watchers shouldn't be such a big problem considering the limitation you have on the force and the bonus you would receive because of it. ( they only have a maximum force equal to half your magic rating round up). So, it would be more chease to say no on watchers but watch a Grade 1 initiate Shaman with Channeling use a Force 6 or more nature spirit. Especially since the channeling is an even shorter effect than the the time a watcher would normally be arround. So why give the Shaman a huge advantage here since the Shaman would be out of nothing where a mage would be out of a ton of conjuring materials for such a short boost.
2. Watchers can be created to stick arround for long periods of time if you want by spending karma or just purchasing conjuring materials to add to the summoning. I would think twice before wasting one of these. (let us not forget how useful they can be) Not to mention that these can last longer than Nature spirits.
3. If the argument as stated by previous posters is based or partially based off the fact that watchers are here on a time constraint, then so are nature spirits, thus rendering them as possibly being unusable. I personally don't think so, but just going off your logic.
4. An ally spirit absolutely should be able to be used, afterall...you spent the Magic point and tons of Karma to bind him with virtually infinite services that can come back at you. Why not have full range of access to him. But, then again...this is only if you consider an ally spirit to have infinite services and the game mechanics are restricting the channeling ability to a specific word "services" vs. "tasks" instead of the concept or idea behind what they will do for you. A task implies they are not serving a master, but only accomplishing a goal, yet they serve me. I don't buy the whole play on words bit. Sounds like we are playing Magic: The Gathering again.
5. I totally agree with the Psionics spirits as mentioned previously. No contest there.

Again, keep in mind that the Channeling only works for a few minutes, makes you dual natured, and uses up a possible friend in melee (etc...).

Posted by: mfb Oct 8 2004, 07:07 AM

yeah, i mean, the FAQ may just be one opinion--but it's the opinion of the guy in charge of making new SR products, which means it's the opinion that's going to be referred to when rules questions come up during the development of new products.

Posted by: blakkie Oct 8 2004, 11:57 AM

QUOTE (Canid13 @ Oct 7 2004, 04:17 PM)

QUOTE (official website FAQ)

Given that that entry in the FAQ contradicts the rules under Heavy Armor power, which explicitly says AV/APDS do count, i hope you'll understand when i chalk it up to a mistake.

P.S. What if i, in a momment of weak sanity, have my slugs dikoted? Treating dikoting as altering the base of the weapon is basically doing what i'm doing. Saying "the strict wording here doesn't f#$%king make sense", then giving the author the benefit of the doubt that they weren't a moron and simply made an oversight.

Posted by: DrJest Oct 8 2004, 12:18 PM

Although I don't have a full understanding of Channeling (since I'm still mired in 2nd Ed primarily) one thing I think should bear consideration is this: from the sound of it, Channeling is not the nicest thing to do to a spirit, so doing it to your Ally spirit should count as abusive; this, in turn, makes the spirit more likely to have it away on its insubstantial toes at the first opportunity (the mage taking deadly damage, as I recall, being a prime example).

Posted by: mfb Oct 8 2004, 07:36 PM

dikoting your rounds won't help against hardened armor, either the spirit power or the mundane version. dikote does not have any extra effect on armor, only barriers.

Posted by: Jason Farlander Oct 8 2004, 10:09 PM

Lets ignore what has been said about the specific wording of the power for a moment (dont worry, those rules should still apply to all summoned spirits). Now that we're in non-ruleslawyer mode for a moment... would it be possible to channel an unbound free spirit if that spirit specifically offered or agreed to be channeled?

Posted by: Herald of Verjigorm Oct 8 2004, 10:36 PM

QUOTE (Channeling @ line 1)

This technique allows an initiate to channel the powers of a bound spirit through his body...

Posted by: SilverWolf_assassin Oct 8 2004, 11:00 PM

I would say no. Not through current metahuman chaneling metamagic.
I would not say that it couldn't happen.
An upgraded verson of channeling for powerhouse free spirits.
I may be tempted to do it for a good plot twist, or to keep an enemy alive.

---------------------------------------
Red & White, twin gnome mages from Irland
"No! I am more powerfull you idiot."

Posted by: Jason Farlander Oct 8 2004, 11:18 PM

QUOTE (Herald of Verjigorm)

QUOTE (Channeling @ line 1)

This technique allows an initiate to channel the powers of a bound spirit through his body...

Hey Herald. I know that. Note the first half of my post.

Posted by: Herald of Verjigorm Oct 8 2004, 11:49 PM

A willing free spirit would have to at least bind itself in some way to the channeler for the option to even be worthy of discussion. The nature of this binding is debateable (does it impart knowledge of a true name? can it be recalled at will?), but that is the only option by the text.

If you want a free spirit to help a mortal escape, give it possession, astral gateway (don't remember if this is neccessary for voluntary possession), and a person it actually values for some reason.

Posted by: Gilthanis Oct 9 2004, 03:14 PM

Well... after long debate, I went strait t the source and sent an e-mail to the head honchos asking for a ruling here is the e-mail and yes according to their ruling I was wrong. :

You can't channel a watcher. They can't handle it. They can't even materialize on the physical plane.

For now, the channeling metamagic can only be used with spirits that owe services, so you can't do it with Ally spirits or bound (formerly Free) Spirits. Though we may come out with an expansion of the rules at some future time.

You can, of course, make house rules that work in your campaign if you want some other outcome.

Good luck.

Signed,
ShadowFaq

PS. You may want to check out the WinterWar convention, in February, in Champaign IL. Its a gaming convention held every February for over 30 years. winterwar.prairienet.org

I hope this clears it up for everyone.

Posted by: Fortune Oct 9 2004, 03:22 PM

So I guess Channeling your Astrally Projecting Initiate buddy is out of the question then?

Posted by: Apathy Oct 11 2004, 04:02 PM

So what would be the most evil use of channelling? Aztech channelling a Blood Spirit? Bug shaman channeling his queen?

Really evil thought: any way possible for some sort of twisted way shaman to control/bind a shedim? Channeled Master Shedim could be really scary...

Posted by: Zenmaxer Oct 11 2004, 11:40 PM

No, the most twisted use of channeling is a cyberzombie channeling a blood spirit as they complete the ritual, because then, technically, the spirit would be permanently trapped.... and the cyberzombie could raise his or her essence above zero.....

I think we can all see where this is going, especially since the only thing prohibiting a cyberzombie from using magic is their below zero ess, supposedly, and the definition of a burn-out relates to essence.....

Posted by: mfb Oct 12 2004, 12:45 AM

won't work. M&M page 55: "the magical and surgical elements are part of the same operation".

Posted by: Zenmaxer Oct 12 2004, 01:17 AM

you don't have to be unconscious for the surgery, I'd imagine. It'd just probably be more likely to preserve your sanity.... I think it's theoretically possible. it certainly made a great villain.

Posted by: mfb Oct 12 2004, 08:54 AM

QUOTE (M&M page 146)

Most surgical procedures are assumed to require anesthesia; the patient is brought to D Stun damage and cannot recover until the surgeon finishes.

Posted by: blakkie Oct 12 2004, 10:46 AM

But it isn't truely a requirement. An epidural to block voluntary muscle movement in the required area, and some of the pain if the doc is in a nice mood , is all that is required. It is actually more common than not for women to be conscious for cesections and that is fullout abdominal surgery.

An upside is that epidurals usually are easier on the patient physically than general anethisa. Given that creating a cyberzombie is pretty taxing on the subject, it might actually be a real advantage to keeping them conscious.

EDIT: Google to the rescue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3146837.stm

Posted by: blakkie Oct 12 2004, 11:13 AM

QUOTE (Zenmaxer @ Oct 11 2004, 11:40 PM)

Truely evil in that it for the most part overcomes a big weakness of cyberzombies, being dual natured without the ability to watch over and protect their astral side. Of course the astral hazing around the cyberzombie (would it still occur even though the cyberzombie is above zero essense?) would make it much tougher than normal to use magic. But at the very least the cyberzombie would have Spell Defense dice, or Shielding if you initiated in that. The cyberzombie would also again have a real chance of being able to be healed magically.

Posted by: toturi Oct 12 2004, 11:24 AM

There is only one Canon way as yet to overcome burnout-ness and that requires a Free Spirit. But I think I can use the presently available game mechanics to do enable a cyberzombie to Channel.

OK, here it is.

[ Spoiler ]

Posted by: Zenmaxer Oct 12 2004, 02:46 PM

I agree, Tot, but on the other hand, ess is traditionally linked to magic, so my assumption would be that raising it would bring magic back up above 0... There are other factors. Shall we start a thread and stop hijacking or do you want to drop it before we inspire anyone?

Posted by: DrJest Oct 12 2004, 03:41 PM

QUOTE (toturi)

There is only one Canon way as yet to overcome burnout-ness and that requires a Free Spirit.

That's new since my day - can someone point me at it? (If it requires MitS, then a quick summary would be nice since I don't have that yet)

Posted by: Herald of Verjigorm Oct 12 2004, 05:08 PM

No, it requires Threats 2. It's a (so far) unique free spirit power.

Posted by: tisoz Nov 5 2004, 09:59 AM

Am I missing something? Why would channeling a spirit increase Essence?