Magical Traps?, One Ring To Rule Them All Options

[LinaInverse]

Hey all,

After sitting through the 4 1/2 hr ExtEd of LotR: RotK, a thought came to me about SR. Would it be possible for a paranoid mage/shaman to make an item that would only work "properly" for them? For example, it's a powerful Foci when they wear it, but if someone else were to try to use it, some other enchantment kicks in that messes them up?

It's not a new concept of course; LotR's whole premise, not to mention an endless raft of D&D copycatting have had powerful items that could enslave, cripple or kill thieves or other who would dare wear their "master's" item. But the problem is that SR seems to rely entirely on an item having to "bond" (ie, spend Karma) before it will work on a person.

The closest thing I could think of would have been an Anchoring Foci (set to fire off a powerful spell, linked to a Detect Individual), but even that requires bonding, doesn't it? Also, there's the whole business that the Drain has to be paid for by the original owner, which kind of puts a kibosh on this idea. For that matter (somewhat unrelated topic), what happens to an Anchoring Foci if the original creater is dead? Does it die too?

Or would this idea be better done by creating a custom spell instead? Are there drain modifiers that could be paid for that would allow a spell to be put onto an item/person/whatever that would fire off later?

[Kagetenshi]

Anchoring focus with a Detect Individual spell. On a false reading, it triggers the anchor which does something nasty.

Edit: and you said that. Gee, I'm awake.

~J

[LinaInverse]

Unfortunately Kage, if the person who picks it up doesn't Bind to it (ie, spend the Karma), then the Anchor doesn't work, doesn't it? Or am I reading something wrong? The other thing about Anchors is that damned requirement of the original caster to pay the drain on time of the spell going off, which kind of defeats the purpose of making the *other* person pay a price for stealing, and not the original creator.

I'm now thinking more that a custom spell that is cast on the Foci, rather than an enchantment on the Foci itself would be a better answer. I don't have my MITS here, so I can't pull up spell research to see if such options are available.

[Bossemanden]

[mfb]

the creator could bind an imp to serve by using its true name, then force the imp to occupy the item in question.

[LinaInverse]

I'm assuming this doesn't make the Imp all that happy. If anything, I would think that the Imp would *help* whoever managed to swipe the Foci in question in the hope of escaping. Does using a True Name mean that the creator can control the Imp to do his bidding (ie, give standing commands to do bad things to anyone who touches the Foci except the original creator)?

[mfb]

yep. it has to obey the caster's commands. it might attempt to twist them by interpreting the command in interesting ways, but it has to obey at some level.

[BitBasher]

But he has to be pretty impressive in his wording, and the spirit can be free to... interpret.

[LinaInverse]

What are the powers of an Imp anyway? Are Imps basically Free Spirits? For that matter, the Force level of an Imp would also have to be taken into account; if too low, then frankly, the Foci's new owner (assuming he's even marginally capable in Magic) would probably just have the Imp killed. It'd have to be pretty high to be credible as a "watchdog".

[Cain]

[toturi]

[mfb]

unique enchantments are possible, of course, but i prefer to try and interpret new concepts according to the established rules. (yeah, unique enchantments are established, but imps are more established, having a solid ruleset.)

[Shrapnel]

[Fortune]

A Ward does all of that.

[hyzmarca]

The problem with using a detect individual spell as a trigger is that, if you use it often enough, the detct spell is bound to fail eventually. If it does at the wrong time you'l be in for a world of hurt.

[DocMortand]

[BookWyrm]

Not to go off on a semi-tangent, but if you really want some great traps, find the Grimtooth's Traps series & read them. There is a new book coming out within the next couple of months, but under Necromancer Games, 'The Wurst of Grimtooth's Traps'. :D:D

I watched the Extended RotK too, and loved it. Bruce Spence (better known as the GyroCaptain from MadMax) played The Mouth of Sauron. Classic. :D

[BookWyrm]

A quick update on Grimtooh's Wurst of Traps; it's just a compliation of all the previous books, converted to the much despised D20 system. I am saddened by this.

[Edward]

It would ether have to be a unique enchantment (talk to your gm) or include an anchoring focus with a detect bonding ritual spell to trigger something offensive.

This would mean that anybody that tried to bond the focus would be attacked by it.

I seem to recall nobody having access to imps home metaplain or for that matter knowing if they have true names

Edward

[TeOdio]

It is a small line, but I've used it as ample justification for "magical" intrusive counter measures. (Traps sounds too DNDish :) ) P88. MITS "Anchored spells are used in Astral security, ... to provide reactive wards.."
If they can do it for astral security, why can't an organization that can't spring for High tech locks and gee wiz security like pressure plates, but has enough magical knowledge, be able to create magical variants of the same ideas? If done sparingly, i find it a subtle reminder to the players that it's the 6th world, and not just :cyber: -punk.
Player 1: It's not mag locked, cool I'll open it.
Me: Roll Willpower target 5.
Player 1: Why, what the hell just happened.
Me: A ***** just went off in your face.
Player 2: Sorry bro, I should have assensed it first.
Player 1: Damn, just as long as there ain't no friggen Kobolds on the other side of that door.
Me: :evil:
Just kidding, but that would be kind of funny.
:nuyen: :nuyen: :nuyen:

[Weredigo]

Lina, just curious, if you could do what yer askin about what would you make?

[LinaInverse]

First off, our campaign is almost entirely Canon, so what I want and what I can make is 2 entirely different things. Canon requires that any actual Foci enchantment be listed in the Force of the Foci, which pumps up the Karma, Costs, and material requirements (not to mention, Foci addiction), even when that enchantment doesn't directly serve the intended purpose of the Foci. Shadowrun also inherently doesn't allow "harmful" enchantments that I know of, short of Anchoring, which quite frankly sucks in 3rdEd implementation. Specifically, the original caster would have to pay the drain for the spell upon activation, even if the spell is supposed to be baneful to the thief. Because of that one rule, most "curse" Anchors end up harming the creator more than the intended victim of the curse.

The best solution I could probably come up with would be to research a custom enchantment (ie, a Combat or Manipulation spell) to activate upon certain conditions. Unfortunately, MITS doesn't have such clauses in the spell research section (I've checked), so I would have to sell an idea to my GM.

In a perfect world? If I could have anything I wanted, and damn the rules? I'd probably make an item enslave anyone who attempted to wear/steal/etc my item for themselves (to be fair, make it go against their Willpower).

[Weredigo]

Groovy, a "Charming" bracelet. Most of the GM's I've known (3/5) would bend the rules just to see what havoc it'd create. I'd just allow it and advise extreme caution.

[mfb]

you could probably do that with anchoring, though you'd have to bend the rules. anchor the enslavement spell to a Detect Individual (focus owner) spell, but do it backwards so that anyone who isn't detected by the spell--ie, anyone who isn't the proper owner--triggers the spell.

[LinaInverse]

The problem mfb is that, when anchoring, the user has to pay for the drain when the spell is triggered. Control Thoughts (the closest spell) is a fairly hefty drain code (as well it should be). Don't forget; this spell is going to be likely triggered while the rightful owner has just been beaten either to death or unconsciousness. Hence, no Anchor.

Two, the spell itself would have to be fairly high Force; anything less than an 8 is going to be laughed off by anyone competent enough to steal a magical Foci (trust me; that old "pickpocket the foci" trick GMs like to run ain't going to work with the form-factor I have in mind). That's 8 Force points (plus the force of the Detect Individual spell, which needs a few dice to be reliable) the mage has to deal with, with regard to Foci Addition that does absolutely nothing for him in all other circumstances; basically crippling his ability to use other Foci.

Read what I said again: I need a way to do this within the basic Canon ruleset of SR3rdEd.