SR2 to SR3: What happened to Spell Locks...?, Why were they removed from SR3? Options

[Kage2020]

The topic and description essentially say it all, but with my refamiliarisation with the Shadowrun rules I noted that they've left out the Spell Lock. Instead the Sustaining Focus (IIRC) takes up it's slot, once again keeping magic in the hands of the mages et al., a feature I'm not entirey sure that I like. (Perhaps a stand over from the time when I was going to play around with a 'prehistory' version of SR before ED was published...)

So for those in the know, why were they removed?

As always, many thanks...

Kage

[TinkerGnome]

Mundanes can have spells locked on them via the Quickening metamagic technique. Of course, I don't know much about spell locks, so it may not be a very close approximation.

[Talia Invierno]

First off, I'm not "in the know".

I'm going to speculate that spell locks (which allowed any spell cast into them, at any Force, to be turned on and off at will, w/o further Drain, at a cost of only 1 karma to bind) were removed as being far too imbalancing. (For a parallel discussion, just take a glance through the sustained spell thread - which argues that sustained spells themselves are imbalancing.)

I'm going to speculate further that they were removed in parallel with removing the "grounding through spell foci" rule. Under SR2 rules, at least the spell lock made the PC using it vulnerable to having a spell ground through it: balancing risk against benefit. With the new revision, that option is gone.

[RedmondLarry]

A Sustaining Focus is simply a Spell Lock with a different name. And 3rd edition adjusted some of the rules, presumably to make them less munchkin. My Shaman no longer has a Spell Lock with Combat Sense 33 successes or Tiger Form 18 Successes available to her.

As you've probably read: force of spell is limited to the rating of the focus, the owner casts the spell into the focus each time she places it on a physical object or being and activates it, and it is deactivated either by the owner at will or by someone physically removing it from the object or being.

[Cain]

Dear gods, were spell locks unbalanced in 2nd ed....

It didn't help that there were Improve Attribute +4 spells, that always gave you a +4 so long as you got one success; all you needed was the spell at force 1. When a mage has 6 different Increase Attribute +4 spells locked on, combined with an Increase Reactions and Increase Reflexes spell, combined with an Enhance Aim spell, all without needing to worry about Focus addiction.... well, you see how ugly it could get.

For 1 karma, you could have an attribute almost permanently increased by +4. Or, you could have a huge (non-glowing) armor spell locked on. Since spell locks worked independant of force, you could permanently sustain a force-20 spell, all for 1 karma. Not good for game balance, I can assure you.

[Sphynx]

Just an FYI, as a 'munchkin' type character, Sustaining Foci are alot more powerful than Locks. Sure, you can't turn them on and off at will, that kinda bites, but you also have a safer Foci. The Karma cost is a factor in resisting Wards and dispellings. Admittedly it's nice they can't go grounding spells into Foci now like in 2nd ED, that would have made the Sustaining Foci even better still. Nonetheless, give me a Sustaining Foci any day. Another great thing is you end up with more Spell Points than 2nd edition, since you don't roll dice based on your Force in a spell. This gives you more Spell Points since you don't need such high force spells anymore for spells where the number of successes don't matter.

Anyhows, I'll take Sustaining Foci anyday over the Locks, all you lose is the aility to turn them off/on at will, and truth be told, I don't mind casting repeatedly for the resistance the Focus now has.

Sphynx

[Synner]

Yes, but the Karma cost for the equivalent bonus is much higher since Sustaining Focus are pretty useless at Force 1 (and easy to kill to boot).

[Sphynx]

Exactly, it's the higher karma cost that makes it more powerful. Ever try to kill a Spell Lock in 2nd Ed? You could almost do it on accident just by manaballing someone. :P

Sphynx

[Abstruse]

I do miss the good old days though when I could send my little security mage after the mage, blow his spell lock, and take out damn near the entire team with one fireball. So much fun...

The Abstruse One

[Turtle]

Hmmmm, you know, I cannot find any mention of a Spell Lock possessing some kind of switch, at least not in 1E rulebooks concerning magic. Guess that was implemented in 2E.

It always was one of the balancing factors of running around with an Armor 6 spell...you were a beacon on the Astral, and a conduit for all kinds of nasty drek from opposing mages to boot. AND that thing had a permanent Rating of 1, so it was gone in a flash, usually with the person wearing it ;)

[Kage2020]

Hmmn, fairy snuff with regards to many of those answers?

But what about the concept that it is 'magic for the mages'? One of the traditional fantasy concepts impossible, i.e. the ability for a mage to 'magic up' a group of adventurers to perform some task? Okay, a twee example above but the concept is in there? The concept of 'magical artefacts' to be used by non-mages...

Or would the standard answer of "Well, maybe if the mana-level is higher..." is the best response...?

Kage

[Synner]

[Kage2020]

Hmmn... That's twice that has been suggested. I really just need to see down with the book! I need to see for myself that foci can no longer be astrally targetted... ;)

Kage

[hobgoblin]

hmm, everyone talk about quickening and sustaining but forget anchoring. sure its mutch less powerful then it was in SR2 but it can still do some funny moves:) like say a magic ring that when you say the right words (just make sure they are not used in normal everyday talk!) and boom you have a armor spell around you :) i just wish that htey had a suspendd option for the sustaining spells so that you could use it more then ones without the mage having to recharge it...

hmm, did a bit of research and in sr2 the one that could turn a spell lock on and off was a magican of the same tradition as the one that made it, so a spell lock placed by a mage could not be triggerd by a shaman. and nowhere does it saythat a mundane could trigger it from what i could see. it seems that the SR3 anchoring foci have taken up some of the powers of hte spell lock and mixed it with some of SR2's anchoring metamagic. basicly the removed the ability to anchor anything (now only special foci) and the sustain and dealy times (i kinda miss them) so that the rules became a bit more streamlined. to bad they removed the ability for detection spells and actions to suspend spells but i have allready said that have i not...

[Sunday_Gamer]

On not finding a "switch"

In SR2 you locked a spell, there is was, cost you 1 karma to lock the spell, it's done. Spell is on 24/7.

In SR3, you use sustaining foci. You pay more karma but that karma is spent in binding the focus to the mage, choosing which spell the focus is designed to maintain. The difference is that the focus is bound and it now has the ability to sustain whatever spell it was designed to sustain, but that doesn't mean it HAS to sustain that spell constantly, unlike in SR2 where the karma was spent "locking" the spell itself down, the karma is now spent binding the focus.

Ex: In SR2, you cast increase willpower +4, you spend 1 karma, it's locked. You now have this spell up constantly. Anything happens to that spell or the lock, your karma is essentially gone and oh well, it's a do over.

In SR3, you bind a sustaining focus of force 4 to yourself. You decide what spell this focus is designed to sustain and you're done. The focus is bound, yet there's no spell up. Now anytime you cast that spell, provided it's force it equal or lower to the rating of the focus, you may activate the focus and the focus takes over sustaining the spell. You can drop the spell anytime you want, and anytime you want to cast it again, you may re-activate your focus, allowing it to take over sustaining the spell.

Hope that helps.

Sunday.

You sure about SR2 allowing to turn spell locks on and off at will Hob? Can you direct me to that page?

[TinkerGnome]

[RedmondLarry]

All text here are quotes or paraphrased from SR2 p. 138:

The magician who creates the spell locks can activate and deactivate them at will (Simple Action).

A magician who creates the lock can give it to another of the same tradition (shamanic or hermetic) for placement and activation.

A lock is dormant until activated, though anyone who glances at it with astral perception will recognize it for what it is.

Once activated, a Spell Lock vanishes on the physical plane. A magician can only see it if he is astrally perceiving. A magician who spots an active Spell Lock can remove it. Once removed, the link [to the casting magician] is broken and the lock goes dormant. It must be re-bonded to be of any use. Any time it is rebonded a new spell can be selected.

[Cain]

I don't have the book handy, but IIRC spell locks were treated as an effective Force 3 for grounding/dispelling/targeting purposes. So, spell locks were more effective than sustaining foci of 2 or less. Granted, they cost about the same as a force-3 sustaining foci, so it balances out somewhat.

[Abstruse]

Spell Locks were Force 1.

The Abstruse One

[Glyph]

On pg. 324 of the main book (SR3), it says:

[Cochise]

On a sidenote to the now gone spell locks:

Most people consider Anchoring a more or less useless metamagical technique due to re-linking issues and the re-occuring drain (potentially in situations where the mage who created the anchor is not prepared for the drain). But to me it seems that there's a little loophole:

[Sphynx]

That's an excellent eval Cochise, and falls in line with how we run things in our game. After all, the negative of Anchoring is the need for Foci and Foci Addiction IMHO. There's no way anyone would learn Anchoring in the popular belief of how Anchoring works.

Sphynx

[Reaver]

As a side note, if you don't like the rules... change 'em.

I don't like the idea of saying they don't exist after two editions and multiple novels of having spell locks. It just doesn't look good and it doesn't make sense. It makes more sense for the sustaining foci to be a new development.

I allow both in my game as they both have thier pros and cons. Keeps it simple and I don't have to rewrite every freakin story either. ;)

[Glyph]

It's a good evaluation of anchoring, Cochise. The only thing that I would add (and you probably didn't mention it because it's so obvious) is that an active anchoring focus can turn a spell "on" and "off" without breaking the spell, but deactivating the focus (after the spell has been activated) would break the spell. So, for example, if you were using an anchoring focus linked to an improved invisibility spell, you would be able to turn invisible and visible at will, but you would still have an active focus, and have to watch out for things like wards.

[Bearclaw]