 sustain focus, can it sustain any spell?, need some book ninja fu |
  |
 Mar 15 2005, 06:04 AM
Post
#101
|
|||||||||
|
Decker on the Threshold  Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156  |
Okay, now you've moved on to making new rules up for no good reason. Not only are you ignoring how the game works, but you're making up entirely new rules, in direct contradiction to the ones already in the book, just to be contrary and to prop up an argument that you just can't concede, no matter how wrong you've been proven both by book references and common sense arguments.
Explain 10 fingers, all moving at different speeds and striking different keys at just about the same time, all while the person using them is thinking about the argument and less about what he's typing. I refuse to believe that it's possible to type using ten whole fingers at once without incurring TN mods for every single one. Hell, each keystroke requires the use of several different muscles all operating in tandem! That's at least a +100 to the TN for typing while thinking of what to write right there! That's why noone can type at more than 3 keystrokes per minute; it's just so damn complicated to keep track of everything. Oh, and quit spouting bile at the other Dumshockers, "kid." You're starting to sound like Doc Funk when he was on one of his damnfool irrational tirades, but at least he understood the rules and didn't start making up his own. |
||||||||
 |
 
|
||||||||
|
Mar 15 2005, 06:05 AM
Post
#102
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
This is so mundane and off topic, but you said "I don't believe", as in you were not sure, you didn't know, you were guessing. I hope this answers your question, and I hope we can refrain from insults in the future? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 15 2005, 06:12 AM
Post
#103
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
I haven't been proven wrong by book refrences. The book is vague. You have not shown me where you can take control of a spell in a focus and change the parameters. Nobody has quoted the book yet, feeble as your atempts are to avoid confronting what I am actually saying to prop up your lame ascertations. And common sense? Answer my argument about the 6 levitating objects with no TN penalties. Your lame example of typing is nothing compared to piloting 6 remote control airplanes at once. Stop defending munchkinism.
Bile? I was attacked and responded in kind. I am no door mat. Never have been never will be, "kid". |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 15 2005, 06:04 AM
Post
#104
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 351 Joined: 17-February 05 Member No.: 7,093 |
Okay, here's the deal. You have no clue how old I am. I have no clue how old you are. I'm inclined to beleive that you are, indeed, as old as you claim, however much your ramblings contradict it. For all I know you're a fifteen year old kid who just heard about SR and wanted to get in on the action. I didn't even bother to check your join date, I don't care. You, similarly, have no bloody clue as to my age, sex, or anything else. All you have to go on is the same I have to go on, writing style and apparant intelligence. You are showing the capacity to write and respond to criticism, even if you seem to lack the ability to understand logical reasoning, which tells me that you are at least in high-school (though you might be a precocious elementary-school kid). Now, were you old enough to be my grandfather (possible, but highly unlikely), then I suppose you could take that as an insult, but I would really rather you try to understand my point of view here.' So, now that we won't be attempting to out-old each other, let's continue on to your rediculous commentary, shall we? 1) You said you don't give a damn, then you say you do (and apparantly you want the rules errata'd with your particular houseruling, which I shall bring up again later). That's a contradiction, but one of the least of your transgressions. 2) Of course you're unimpressed, you have failed to understand (or perhaps read) the many posts that preceeded your entry into this discussion, or the ones that came after (other than, of course, to attack them without making a point of your own). I wouldn't expect you to be impressed by something that has so obviously gone over your head (apologies for the personal attack, but that's exactly what it seems has happened). It IS an outrageous statement that you will show us we're wrong. Made even more outrageous by your inability to back it up. 3) :please: I saved the post because I thought it hilarious, an exercise in fallacy. I admit I didn't want you to change your post, but that's because it would have been such a waste of good material. As to why you're here, well, from what you've been doing, it appears you ARE here to bicker (pimply faced kid or not, that's exactly what you're doing, and what you've been doing since you started this rampage). 4) Well, here's the grandfather quote, as well as an assertion that I should not worry about you getting picked on. Alright then. I won't. Instead of trying to be a nice guy and giving you the benefit of one huge doubt, I'll assume you're just an idiot who thinks he can get more respect online by claiming to be old. No, I'm too mature for that, I'm sorry. I'll save the name calling for others who care less than I. I'll try to limit myself to obviously deserved slights. 5) . . . Stop it. Just . . . stop trying to prove my faith in you wrong. A levitate spell is capable of lifting virtually any item not nailed down. That's more than one 'thing' therefore a Levitate spell is capable of lifting 'things'. Only one of these 'things' at a time, yes, but 'things' nonetheless. Learn how to converse. 6) Yes, yours are straw men. And it isn't so much a lame argument, as it is a true one. And, I might add, completely irrelevant to the point I made. 7) I'll defer to others on this point, they have said it better than I would. As to the 6 levitate spells . . . stop with the straw men already! The number of spells sustained is irrelevant to the discussion. 8 ) I'm pretty sure nobody here agrees with everything canon, but most of us agree that any relevant discussion of the rules has to be based in canon, otherwise we're in houserule hell territory. As to your position being supported by canon... no, you beleive that canon should support your argument. As noted earlier, you want your houserule on sustaining foci/multiple sustained spells to be made canon via errata. That does not mean canon backs you. Actually, as noted so many times in this thread, your position is not supported by canon. 9)
Indeed. 10 and beyond do not deal with my post directly, so I'll let who he is insulting there respond for themselves. With one final note.
Is it just me, or did he just reference what I think he referenced? Aren't there traditional consequences for something like that? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 15 2005, 06:06 AM
Post
#105
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
I did get my nose rubbed into a pile a few times 20 30 years ago when I was your age. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 15 2005, 06:54 AM
Post
#106
|
|||||||||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Now I'm the first to admit that the book is vague on a number of occasions. I've actually sent Fanpro a very long email recently concerning several vagurities in their books, particularly Matrix. This, however, is not one of them. Re-reading the sections I already quoted, it is obviously clear that control over the spell's granted abilities are necessarily independent of the mental strain (and associated TN mods) related to maintaining the cast spell. Others have said this as well as I several times in the past, and you responded with the argument that you "don't care about the rules," and that in your opinion they shouldn't be. Well I suppose you're entitled to your opinion, but don't try to pass it off as canon just because you want it to be.
And, similarly, I contend that using the abilities granted by six levitate spells is *also* nothing compared to piloting six remote control airplanes at once, and is in fact no more complicate than moving six different muscles in your hand. You'll have to make some sort of argument that it is, because according to the rules as written my interpretatin stands as the more valid one. For support I come back to the arguments proving that sustaining a levitate spell is no more strain-inducing than sustaining an armor spell, an argument you have yet to refute other than claiming that there should be an additional TN mod, a claim which you have yet to support in any way.
Incorrect. the whole series of personal attacks began when you responded personally to an accusation of using the straw man argumentative fallacy. Accusing you of attacking a straw man rather than the point under debate isn't a personal attack; rather it is a valid way of countering a false argument. Responding to it as it were a personal attack puts you in the wrong, but rather than own up to your mistake and admit you were wrong, even after others pointed out that a straw man accusation isn't a personal insult, you insist on acting as if you were personally attacked and continue to respond to what you believe as in kind. This in turn makes others respond to you as if you were a child, or at least an immature adolescent. This is where the "kid" I was quoting comes from. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Mar 15 2005, 07:02 AM
Post
#107
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
I should also point out that streching the claim that directing the effects of a levitate spell does not incur TN mods to 6 sustaining foci and and an aerial ballet is an almost textbook example of the aforementioned straw man fallacy, but that only seems to provoke you to respond as if you have been personally attacked. This is why I decided to take up that argument as well rather than dismissing it as tangental and ludicrous, which it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 15 2005, 07:33 AM
Post
#108
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 942 Joined: 13-May 04 Member No.: 6,323 |
Yes, you have, repeatedly. Shall we quote yet again the part that says the spell lets the caster move things? Unless you can find anything, anywhere, that says that a sustaining focus changes that fact, you've been proved completely and totally wrong by the book. As to your strawman arguement about the arial ballet (and yes, it's a strawman), there's no penalty for moving 6 people using the levitate spell, but if your GM wants to impose "attention devided" penalties for moving two people in different ways, that's your GM's call. It would be the same as attempting to make a perfect illusion of a known person... your GM might set a high target number to get the illusion to look exactly right, but that doesn't mean the TN to cast the illusion in the first place changes. JaronK |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 15 2005, 07:57 AM
Post
#109
|
|||
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
And this, ladies and gents, is how on-line debates get out of control. One group of people are talking about the game rules in the books, and Rory here's talking about the game rules in his head. All you're doing is wandering around, alone in House Rule Land, swinging your broomstick at a pinata miles and miles away, full of tasty treats that the other children will get to eat while you cry inside your blindfold. You can't get in a discussion on-line about "common sense" or "how the rules should be" and still use words like "right" and "wrong." Once you stop discussing canon directly, you're just spouting opinions (and insults). You're sitting here disagreeing with the rules, blatantly stating you disagree with the rules, and then calling anyone who agrees with the rules a munchkin or rules-laywer (for being, y'know, right when they state a fact). And, see, that's what my generation calls "funny." If you want to discuss how Levitate works in a focus, discuss how Levitate works in a focus. Not how you think it should, and how everyone who thinks different is a munchkin, but how it works according to the rules of the game we're all here to talk about. We don't care how old you are, we don't care how tough you talk, we don't care how offended you get at your straw man arguments being called straw man arguments. We care about the rules, and clarifying them. Change your diaper, swap out your dentures, rub in your arthritis medication, put on your bifocals, and read the rulebook. Then come back and take part in a discussion. "Kid." (See? It's easy to be rude over the internet -- you didn't pioneer it, just because you started it on this thread.) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 15 2005, 12:27 PM
Post
#110
|
|
|
Karma Police Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,358 Joined: 22-July 04 From: Gothenburg, SE Member No.: 6,505 |
Rory: If you truly want to come to a conclusion to this debate, adress one of the many answers you have gotten that have said approximetly the following:
A focus sustains a spell, so there is no way you would get a penalty for sustaining the spell. That penalty comes from sustaining, which you are not doing. However, if you were to do something complex using the spell, like orchestrating an arial ballet, then the target number is set by the GM. If you are the GM and you consider that a hard thing to accomplish (and I would tend to agree with you, puting me at odds with Eyeless Blond) then you simply give that task a high TN, and make it an exclusive complex action. This is the way most people here see it. It´s perfectly allright for any individual GM to rule how difficult a task should be. So your examples are really no problem for a GM to handle within the rules, and they can be handled in accordance with that GM's view on common sense. I haven´t been a big part of this discussion, so I view myself as an outside observer of sorts. And I can tell you feel cornered and missunderstood. God knows I know it´s easy to get into that situation. Even if you start to lighten up in that situation, it´s hard to get others to stop attacking everything you say. Never the less, it seems to me that you´re mostly the one to blame for the way this thread has turned out. It was probably not your intention, but anyway you need to lighten up. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 15 2005, 02:14 PM
Post
#111
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
As to the 6 man ballet. I ask this:
Can you picture 6 people, floating through the air how the ballet should look? Yes? Its not that hard to picture them up there, doing their twirls and not right? Thats how hard it is for the mage to tell the spell what to do. Thats why its trivial. Now, what if he was sustaining all the spells? Complete with +12TN modifier and all. He still can make them do a ballet, and study calculus, sustaining that many spells is straining, but he can still ballet them till the cows come home. Alternately, studying calculus I would argue is an exclusive action, at least, if you want to actually remember any of it when you're done. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 15 2005, 02:22 PM
Post
#112
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086 |
Yes, I have. Convincing you is not required for the argument to be sound. But, in the interests of how it's going... How is my reasoning flawed? Is there ANYTHING in canon to suggest that a spell giving the caster telekinetic control over something and moving it 'up' is different from a spell giving the caster telekinetic control over something and moving it 'left'? I haven't seen anything, in the multiple readings of the spell and descriptions of magic. What I have seen, is that the spell gives the caster telekinetic control over the target of the spell. Nothing else. If you want the way the spell works, from an in-game perspective? You cast it, and imagine where you want something to go. If you have a sustaining focus, you don't have to concentrate on maintaining the spell, you just have to think about moving the target. If you don't have a sustaining focus, you have to do both. Beyond that.. Of course the spell is set. The spell is set the INSTANT it's cast. You can't change the force, you can't change the target, you can't change the spell. By your interpretation of the rules, even without a sustaining focus, you can't change the direction the person is going in, because BY CANON, spells cannot be changed once cast. Likewise, your comments about 'placing spells into the focus' are, to put it bluntly, nonsensical. You cast a spell through the focus. You don't cast the spell, then put it in the focus. It's ALWAYS in the focus.
Good for you, you've proven that it's a sustained spell. Now please address the actual issue -- that using the spell is in no way related to sustaining it, and that the spell is NOT the telekinetic motion of the object, but rather, granting the caster the ability to manipulate THAT object telekinetically?
That position is unsupported by canon, the spell, logic, common sense, or the majority of the persons who have posted on this thread. If you want to houserule it, fine, but that is NOT the levitate spell. I repeat, the levitate spell is NOT the manipulation of the object, but the ability of the caster to manipulate that object. As for the caster concentrating being required to move it around at will.. of course he has to concentrate on it. Your argument is spacious, nobody has said that the caster doesn't have to concentrate to move someone. What we haven't said, is that he has to concentrate on the spell to do it. To make that work, please see my above arguments about how the spell would have to be different for each different motion, and recognize that your position is unsupported by canon and is in fact in direct opposition of canon. Car Analogy: Remote control devices are not comperable to levitate spell/telekinetic manipulation. Yes, the car analogy works to a degree, as far as one vehicle. Extending it to multiple vehicles is not a sound position however. What the car analogy gives, is a combination of tasks (sustaining and using the spell), and the differences between sustaining(the gas) and maintaining(the steering). The difficulties are completely reversed from canon, but that is another matter, and not relevent to my point, which was simply that manipulating the target and sustaining the spell are distinct. Munchkinism comments: The Canon-based view is fundamentally opposed to yours, and you have insisted that the canon-based view is munchkin. That's your position. Your alternatives are unsupported by canon, and beyond that, I personally find to be logically spacious and irreconciable with my view on how magic in shadowrun works. You are arguing that firing a gun at a single target deserves a +1 TN for holding the gun. Holding the gun is a trivial task (see previous posts for other examples and justification as to why manipulation of something via a levitate spell is a trivial task), so it does NOT modify the difficulty. Unless, of course, your game includes this modifier. If it does include modifiers for holding the gun, then we'll increase the modifiers by having the weight change with every bullet fired, identical to the recoil modifiers sounds about right. This is completely unsupported by canon, but roughly equivalent to your position -- after all, you have to rebalance your gun every bullet that's fired, so there should be a +1 penalty there. After all, someone with skill 8 and enough recoil comp to negate full auto is munchkin, so we have to make full auto harder. And to head off the retorts about how the person with skill 8 and lots of recoil comp isn't munchkin, because they bought the skill up to 8 and paid nuyen... the mage BONDED sustaining focii. 6 of them, according to your example. That's 24-30 karma, assuming force 4-5 to cast. The person, with skill 6 initially and quick 6, paid 30 karma to get the skill up to 8. Comperable. Why does one deserve penalties for the other being munchkin and the other not?
Um... We don't, that's canon, all sustained spells give a +2 TN unless cast through a sustaining focus. What you are saying, is that either: manipulating someone under the levitate spell is a complicated task that does not take up an action but provides a TN change, or the levitate spell is a complicated spell and requires an increased target number to sustain to represent this. |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Mar 15 2005, 02:32 PM
Post
#113
|
|||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Well, more than that, just because you can try something doesn't mean you'll succeed at it. Remember the fingers analogy I gave earlier: just because you can move your fingers without thinking too much about it doesn't mean you can automatically type 120 words per minute. In the same exact way, just because you can telekinetically lift objects with essentially no effort doesn't mean you can perform an aerial ballet with no effort. The act of lifting someone is easy, as the sustaining focus is doing all the hard work for you; using it to do something complex is not. I believe this was covered before as well.
(Edit): Essentially I'm agreeing with you. The point I was trying to make is that using telekinetic control to move the people around in said aerial ballet does not impose its own TN modifier. The task itself may be hard, but the individual movements are fairly easy. Just like typing 120 wpm is hard, but moving your fingers is easy. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 15 2005, 06:50 PM
Post
#114
|
|
|
Karma Police Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,358 Joined: 22-July 04 From: Gothenburg, SE Member No.: 6,505 |
I figured as much. I sort of suspected "at odds" was not the best phrase to use. But I could think of nothing better, because english is not my native language. And even if we were to be at odds about that issue, my argument is that in that case both of our positions would be valid. TN's are after all given copletely to the GM to decide ("by the power invested in me, I declare..."). Try to use all the modifiers you can dig up that are in the rules, but if the TN doesn´t seem right for some reason, it´s your fraggin' duty to change it. Not every situation can be covered by the rules. So there´s two arguments on this thread now.
One that´s about how difficult it would be to accomplish Rory´s aerial feats and what not. This argument has little to do with the rules, as it´s the GM´s call. You could maybe say something worthwhile with knowledge of physics or psycology or something. It would however be good if we could stop talking about it, as nobody is likely to ever have to make that call anyway. The other has to do with if you can use a spell tossed into a focus like usual, or if it becomes frozen (so to speak). I´m going with the first option, but I see logic in the second too. This thread should come back on track. There might still be interesting arguments about this out there. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 16 2005, 10:55 AM
Post
#115
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 942 Joined: 13-May 04 Member No.: 6,323 |
I think there's an easy analogy to make with the ariel ballet thing.
When a choreographer creates a dance, it's not the choreographer who does the dancing... the dancers do it. It's still the choreographer's dance, and what he wants is what happens... the dancers don't do any thinking, they just follow directions. Casting levitate into a sustaining focus is like this. It follows the directions of the caster, even though the caster doesn't have to sustain the levitate spell. I think in the case of the Arial Ballet thing, you'd cast it as normal into your 6 sustaining foci, and then make a Performance (Dance) or Knowledge: Choreography check with a TN based on how difficult the dance is, to see if they don't crash into each other. JaronK |
|
|
|
|
Mar 17 2005, 01:01 AM
Post
#116
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 14-March 05 Member No.: 7,158 |
Alright guys, as it happens, I was the caster in question about this spell. I picked the focus off an elven spell slinger, and bound it to levitate. Alright. Good so far. I never really intended for that to turn into a heated debate that turns dumpshock into another livejournal. (Calm down Sharaloth.) Can't we all just say that the rules specified in (Insert source book here) aren't exactly clear enough on how levitate works, what it can and can't do, and that we all have no idea what the hell we're talking about?
Thought so. Now, with that out of the way, why don't we disregard this whole thing and leave it up to the GM to call it based on houserules? Sounds good. I just thought it would be kind of cool to be a dwarf that's 3'5" tall, 6'5" if you count the three foot gap between him and the ground. Seriously, I can hoof it for god's sake. END. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 17 2005, 02:13 AM
Post
#117
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Actually if you look over the conversation the honest debate was over awhile back, around page 2-3, where it was discovered that the spell description didn't refer to who or what was sustaining the spell to figure out who gets control over the levitation abilities, but simply refers to the caster. The rest of the thread was spent convincing a small minority that when you're looking for answerf from the canon ruleset you can't just ignore what the books say just because you don't like being wrong.
So, yes, END by all means, but let's give credit where credit is due; this is actually one case where the rules are *not* at all ambiguous, however much you want to ignore them. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 17 2005, 03:02 AM
Post
#118
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
Ok, I am going to ignore Sharaloth because she is not worth wasting time on and makes zero sense. I have to work long hours and do not get a chance to return here every day to respond to childish drivel. Eyeless Blond, nobody on this thread has shown me how the TN penalty for sustaining a spell are arrived at. In a calm and rational way can you direct me anywhere in the rules that shows the TN is solely because of the effort of channeling the mana to power the spell? It is my contention that the +2 TN penalty involved is not derived from channeling the magic and powering the spell, but because of the CONCENTRATION involved in controlling/manipulating the effects of the spell, or in other words, the actual act of USING the spell's abilities. I have not read, (THOUGH I MAY BE WRONG), anything to dispute this. So if you follow that logic you understand why I feel there should be a +2 TN modifier for each sustained spell that requires any amount of concentration to use, no matter how trivial munchkin players attempt to make it seem. To clear it up, I do care about the rules. That is why I am attempting to reason with everyone. But I do not care what a rule says if it needs to be changed. It being the whole point to change a broken rule. Likewise I do care what others have to say. But I did not feel that being verbally gang banged by a bunch of youngsters calling my arguments made of straw good manners either. It is funny that I've yet to ever be insulted or have that kind of language used to my face, which makes it kind of frustrating to a guy that did not grow up in the electronic age. Now to something in particular:
I agree with you that piloting 6 planes would be more difficult than manipulating 6 levitation spells solely with your mind. I don't think it would be much more difficult though and here is the reason why I feel that way; think carefully for a moment, think about controlling a single ball with your mind alone. You may be using just your mind, but in order to make the ball move you must be able to see it. We have all heard the phrase "don't take your eye off the ball". Now imagine having two balls to maneuver around. You have to at least look to see which way each one is going and where each one is at a given time. According to the spell if you lose concentration the spell drops. So if you take your eye off of one of the balls the other might drop. Assuming you are correct, that you are able to use the spell to levitate the original target of the spell at will, ie.. the levitate spell is being powered by the sustaining focus, I do not believe the sustaining focus will give you license to break your concentration on manipulating the ball without consequences. Which means you must focus your concentration on using a spell like levitation, which in my opinion means you would suffer a +2 TN modifier for each additional task you attempt. A +12 modifier to skill use is not unreasonable considering you are manipulating and focusing your eyes on 6 flying objects potentially going in 6 different directions, at 6 different speeds, and at 6 different rates of travel all at once. Anyone saying this would be easy is simply a munchkin player. Your eyes can only be in one place at a time. Even if you could move the mouse pointer on the screen you are looking at you could only move one pointer at a time. You may be able to move them quickly, but could you run thru 6 different mazes with 6 different pointers? A turn is 3 seconds in SR. Let's say you had a maze that took 3 seconds to finish. Do you think you could finish 6 different mazes in 3 seconds with 6 mouse pointers under your mental control? If you answer honestly you will see my point. And in other words, you can't just look at the start of the maze, look at the end and make the mouse move thru the maze on auto pilot. That is not what the sustaining focus would do, the sustaining focus is no more than power to make the mouse appear on your screen. Similarly you could not levitate a hammer, a saw, a screw driver, a brick trowel, a cement float, and a wrench and have them fly around building a house for you with a straight up civil engineering roll while you check the blue prints. Thin it thru, and use common sense like I am asking instead of picking holes in a general idea I have. I am not a rules lawyer.
Well that is great that you have some place to go and get your quotes. But I take it personal when anyone insults me. According to the dictionary a straw man (is a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted), That does not describe my point of view and I take offense to having my view belittled. Nobody would do it to my face and I am certain i the context in which you all have done it. So I did not start the personal attacks in this thread. If you feel me belittling your points and making smarmy arrogant comments about your labors is not insulting then you have a thicker skin than I. Meanwhile I will respond in the manner that I am spoken to.
My point is valid and is on topic. I apparently have a way of typing over everyone's head, or not being clear. For that I apologize. And to be clear, you did not say I was attacking straw men. You said my point was a straw man argument. Instead of attacking me, attack my point if you disagree, nobody likes to be ridiculed that way. My reaction was totally understandable.
Others jumped on the straw man band wagon because like cowardly school yard bullies they saw I did not appreciate it, so used it as a weapon. That is attacking the person and not the point. Even after I made it clear I did not appreciate it, other posters joined in late to flame me from the safety of their mummy and daddy's house. kind of cowardly in my opinion. But usually when someone is losing a debate they resort to this sort of tactic.
No. What is ludicrous is you suggesting you can control a spell after it has been powered by a focus without a TN penalty.
You have not quoted to me where the TN penalty comes from powering the spell with mana. So repeat once again if you have, there has been so much straw I can't find it.
Since you insist on insulting my point of view and the work I am putting into this, I would like to know exactly what is weak about wanting a TN penalty when your focus is divided, let's say in the midst of combat? Below is a situation where you get to use your 6 levitation spells sustained by foci, answer the question at the end: You are a mage sustaining an invisibility spell on yourself on a hillside. Five hundred meters away is a sub station for the power company, it is a central hub for hundreds of high voltage power lines coming and going plus huge transformers all around the interior area of a fenced in compound. Terrorists are inside the building threatening to blow it up and put the whole city out of power for days if not weeks while repairs can be made. The perimeter is mined and patrolled by paras. A team of 6 mercenaries have hired you to levitate them over the fence. The job will bring you huge profit, rep, karma, and a one time favor from the mayor. As you carefully maneuver your team over high voltage lines and thru a maze of power transformers from out of nowhere a troll pops up with polearm. From 500 meters you can barely see them with the naked eye, but the spell is line of sight so you are legal according to canon. Who knows how you can handle 6 men at once, but they all need to land simultaneously for the signal to attack. You know that one small miscalculation on their flight path will possibly bring them into contact with a power line carrying mega volts of electricity. Tell me what TN would you give to your unarmed combat skill roll vs the troll. And please explain why and if it would be any different to maneuver just 2 or 3 from a closer distance. I don't think I have a straw man argument just because you can't explain it away with rules. The rules are broken. According to the way you and others have been suggesting, there should be no penalty at all for you to engage the troll while maneuvering any number of levitation spells. You don't just think of a destination and the spell teleports your object there on auto pilot. You must continuously "push" your object in a direction, the split second you stop concentrating on that what happens? I say the spell drops just like the description, IF it is allowed at all. It makes far more sense though to just to say it is not possible to sustain a spell that requires further concentration after it is powered by a focus. That is not a straw man argument. It is well thought out and based on common sense. To say otherwise is insulting, and I take it as so. (Not just because it disagrees with me, but because it is debasing to belittle anyone's efforts) Critias, I go to many conventions if you would like to change my diapers for me, smart mouth. Pretty cowardly to throw insults from your mommy's computer, huh?
You, however started it with me, didn't you, son? Take responsibility for your own actions. I treat others the way they treat me. I am very polite until crossed. You learn that skill if you want to remain living in this world places I have spent a great deal of time. Mintcar, thanks for your level headed words. As GM I would not allow spells that require further concentration to work until I see something from the game designers clarifying this matter. The abuse potential is too high. If spells requiring further concentration ARE allowed to be sustained by foci, I would make the spell EFFECT drop when concentration ended and I would charge a +2 TN to any skill test rolled while the caster's concentration was divided on controlling the effects of the spell. This sounds very reasonable to me and will prevent munchkinism.
Good advice. I do have my pride as anyone else does. But I will be happy to be a civil as anyone will be with me.
I disagree. If you have read this entire post I gave an example above of being able to control 6 mouse pointers on your computer screen. If you had 6 different mazes that normally take 3 seconds to complete do you think you could cross your arms and complete 6 of them just using your mind? My point is you have to look and focus your vision on where each one is going separately. The spell, if even allowed to work this way, would power the ability to move the mouse pointer with your mind, but you would still have to make each mouse pointer actually move up and down, right and left. Add the difficulty of an unknown maze pattern and you can see that the task is in no way "trivial" as you claim. You must "push" each object levitated as I have already said. There is no auto pilot and according to the description of the spell it would drop if you lost concentration....so what happens when you lose concentration on a foci sustained spell? I say the object would fall to the earth without your concentration on it, and if this total concentration is a distraction, which it is realistically, then it would incur a TN penalty.
This seems to be a major differing view. I haven't read where it is the "powering" of the spell that causes the +2 TN. As far as I can see it is the "concentration" on the varying spell effects that cause the +2. So spells that do not require concentration to VARY the spell effects like armor and invisibility would not get a penalty if they were sustained in a mindless foci. Does this make sense?
Not convincing me doesn't make yours sound either. Nor does majority make it so either.
You are varying the spell effects. That requires concentration and for you to "keep your eye on the ball" so to speak. If you read the spell it says once you stop concentrating on the spell it drops. QUOTE UNDER SUSTAINING SPELLS: "When concentration is lost, the spell's effects disappear" The spell may be sustained by a focus, but it's effects disappear once you stop concentrating on it. If this includes armor spells, so be it. QUOTE UNDER SUSTAINING FOCI: A sustaining focus is used to "lock" a sustained spell, maintaining it without attention or concentration on the part of the caster" This is the part that must be changed to clarify this problem. You can't maneuver 2 items let alone 6 objects without "attention or concentration", therefore the spell should either not be allowed to be sustained as I wish, or a TN must apply to represent the "attention and concentration". And a force 6 foci can have 6 force 1 levitate spells in it. I am not a rules lawyer and do not know how many foci a mage can have to be addicted, but if it is 1 focus per point of sorcery that would be 36 force 1 levitate spells. Just enough to get my assault team off the ground and moving over the perimeter wire....goes off to play Flight of the Valkyrie and plan next move.
Sorry I am not as eloquent with wording. I don't mean to change the force level. I mean the varying effects. Just like it says under sustaining a spell. EFFECTS. My very simple contention is if they VARY the spell can't be sustained in a focus, or at best, the spell effects would end if "concentration and attention" ended and it would create a +2 TN modifier just as if the spell was being sustained without a focus. in other words, why bother placing it in a focus if you are going to get the same +2 TN, except that you don't have to pay drain over and over to levitate?
That is word semantics. When you cast the spell the foci automatically sustains it. It is an exclusive action and the foci is tied directly to the spell or vice versa however it is said. You can't power a rocket ship without being connected. You can't power a toaster without being plugged in. Mana has a form, ie..mana storms, to tap it you need to be able to make the connection. Whether you call that attaching a foci to the spell or placing the spell in the foci it doesn't matter does it? I don't get so picky on trivial stuff. The heart of the debate is the TN modifiers and the ability to use levitate type spells, that require further attention, in sustaining foci.
I hope I have addressed this. You can't "lock" a spell with a sustaining focus that requires further attention and concentration to use. Simple as that.
This is an excellent point. If I was saying anything counter to this, then I stand corrected. It is the ability to manipulate the "target" and only the target of that particular spell. To manipulate a second target would require an additional spell. My argument is that the process of manipulating the spell requires "attention and concentration" in the case of levitation. This puts it at odds with the whole concept of using a sustaining focus in the first place, which of course, is to free the mage from attention and concentration.
The canon based view is not opposed to mine. Other than levitate type spells that require further attention and concentration I believe the sustaining focus works fine. The ruling is up to each GM. That the majority chose to run it your way does not make it sensical. I personally find it to be logically specious and irreconcilable with my view on how the human brain, coordination, concentration, and eyesight works that you feel you can manipulate objects with no attention or concentration even with magic considering the parameters are "line of Sight" meaning the spell effects have to be viewed to use, which would indicate some sort of penalty to other actions.
The act of lifting something with mana is easy as well. The TN as far as I can tell is because of the attention it takes maintaining and varying the "effects" of a spell, not because of the mana used. I need a quote if not.
That can't be true if you actually think about it. The spell will not assist you at all. It only allows your mind to move those objects meter by meter. Without total concentration the object will not move at all. It doesn't matter where the mana to generate this ability comes from. The TN is from the effort of making an object go a certain direction and speed.
I disagree. A coreographer watching his dancers move can pick his nose, get up and go to the bathroom, or fall asleep at the boring show and the show will go on. The foci does not have any input what so ever. Once total concentration is lost what would happen to an object a mage is levitating? The foci has no brain, it can't continue a spell on it's own, it does not know where the caster wanted the object to go. According to the description of sustaining a spell the effects end when the caster no longer gives attention to a spell. Can you address this as it relates to a levitate spell? This is a small part of what I am asking. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mar 17 2005, 03:13 AM
Post
#119
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
TheWinningLoser, actually I am glad you pointed this little bit of munchkin loop hole out. The serious discussion may have been over before I entered the fray, but I pointed out where the books are wrong with common sense and certain egos don't like being challenged. It turned into a sore loser thread, sorry for my part of it, but I don't take well to insults.
As GM I would chose one of two courses below. First, I would not allow spells to be sustained that required any amount of concentration or attention to change once the spell was sustained. Simply put, the focus in question was not designed for that use. Second, if I allowed you to sustain a levitate at all you would be required to focus your concentration on varying the effects becasue it is a line of sight spell requiring you to see where you are going and requiring you to concentrate on this. Once you stop concentrating on the spell you would fall like a rock, but it would still be there if you regained conciousness before you hit the ground. Further you would receive a +2 TN to all other skill tests just as if you were sustaining the spell without the focus. The benefit to this being you would not have to pay drain to get underway once again. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 17 2005, 03:53 AM
Post
#120
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
I'm not at all sure where you get this idea. A Sustaining Focus can only hold one specific, pre-determined spell of a Force equivalent to the Force rating of the Focus. Nothing in canon backs up this theory that a Force 6 Sustaining Focus can hold 6 Force 1 spells. Outside of this one thing, the rest of your post basically deals with your own ideas and house rules in regard to levitiation type spells and their relationship to Sustaining Foci. That is fine as far as I am concerned, as long as you admit that they are your house rules. This you have pretty much done numerous times, in saying that you don't actually care what canon states on the matter. As an aside, Focus Addiction can occur whenever the combined Force of all Foci (of any type) in use at one time exceeds twice the mage's Magic rating. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 17 2005, 04:01 AM
Post
#121
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
Well thanks for clearing it up for me about addiction. That means I could reasonabley have 11 levitation spells sustained in Force 1 foci. As to my confusion on the number of spells per foci; Page 190 main rule book says "A sustaining focus can only sustain SPELLS with a Force equal to or less than it's own Force" It said "SPELLS", meaning multiple spells as far as I could see. If it was meant to hold just one spell it might have said "A SPELL" in place of "spells". This leads me to believe multiple spells can be held in a foci, but each must be set. As to house rules. The solution I set forth is nothing but a house rule, but it makes more sense than leaving it vague. It is still questionable how you can levitate without "concentration and attention" Do you not agree considering it is a LOS spell, meaining you will be giving it attention and concentration to use the effects? This is directly at odds of the purpose of a sustaining focus. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 17 2005, 04:16 AM
Post
#122
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 351 Joined: 17-February 05 Member No.: 7,093 |
Okay, first of all:
Wha . . um ... huh? Okay? I guess. I'll try to, um, not fly off the handle anymore? If that's at all possible? I think I'm gonna need some clarification here, do you not want me to be angry at you? Or at something else? I'm trying to understand why you would think I'm anything but calm, and in what regards you want me to be less emotional... I'm fairly certain I've been nothing but calm and rational the entire thread through... actually, never mind. I wonder why you would think this, but not enough to really delve into it. I've got more annoying fish to fry. Now, strange, inexplicable personal references aside, let's get to Rory.
I'm glad you find my posts so well done as to defeat any attempt you might make to attack them. 'Cause that's all your saying here. Anyone who has read my posts knows that I'm making perfect sense (with a sarcastic tone, sure, but that doesn't lessen the truth and logic of them), and if anybody here's being childish, it's you, boyo. Don't take my good will as an indication of weakness, I've been being nice because you're obviously nowhere near a level that attacking you would be in any way challenging to me (or even most people on this board). Learn some rules of logical argument, learn the conventions of conversation, and learn how to present your ideas without making personal attacks or sounding like an ass. Then come back and try again, you might garner a little more in the way of respect. Rory, you are not getting it. You haven't gotten it for pages, and our every attempt to explain it to you and point you in the right direction have failed. I'm going to make one last try. Your 6 (used to be 12, but I guess you decided a smaller strawman would make it more beleivable) levitate ballet example is irrelevant (That is: not pertaining to or outside the bounds of) to the argument. If you think there should be target modifiers for sustaining spells in sustaining foci, make another thread, ask it there. This thread's main question from WAY back was about whether you could control a spell once it's in a sustaining focus (in this case 'control' refers to manipulating the effects or abilities granted by the spell, and not actually altering the spell itself). There are camps on both sides of the issue, and ideas were tossed back and forth. What you did, was take one side, and then set up a straw man (the 12 or 6 man ballet) and attack that. You're making a contention (that manipulating a sustained levitate should STILL have some TN penalties just because ... well, because you might have to think a little about it) that is not part of the argument at hand, completely out of the bounds of it, in fact. That is a STRAW MAN argument, a logical fallacy, something that makes you other than right. It is NOT new, not closed to the computer-using generations, but something that has been around for thousands of years. Several logical fallacies were catalogued by Aristotle himself (you DO know who Aristotle was, right?), and the Straw Man is a subfallacy of one of those. As to whether or not you can manipulate a levitate spell in a sustaining focus, well Eyeless came up with what I think of as the best answer pages ago. I'm sure the original proponents for the 'not' side would disagree, but you are not helping their case. Rory, you are being a vicious little brat who refuses to see the illogic in his own position, and gets offended when we call your straw man argument exactly what it is. You have been making a series of logical fallacies throughout your posting history in this thread, but that is one of the few we have deemed important enough to call you on. Critias was just flinging the same garbage you were back in your face, hopefully giving you the shock necessary to allow you to figure out what you've been doing. Apparantly, all it did was make you withdraw furthar into your own imagined construct of how this thread is going. Here's what others have been saying restated in a simpler form: Stop being a child. Act your claimed age, and not what you try to insult others with. If you choose to ignore this, fine. Your perogative, and not my problem. But let no one say that I didn't try. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 17 2005, 04:23 AM
Post
#123
|
|||||||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Well, conceivably yes, but you are also limited to a total number of active Foci equal to your Intelligence (SR3 pg 190).
Well, it technically states ...
In reality though, it's a moot point, as it goes on to state that the Focus must be in physical contact with the target of the spell, and 6 seperate Levitation spells (or spells of any one type) in a single Focus would still not be of any benefit to more than one person. As to the rest of your post, I am not going to comment further on whether I think it is reasonable or not. I have given my opinion on the matter already in this thread, and nothing that has been said so far has changed my mind. Nothing is to be gained by my arguing the about Levitation/Sustaining Focus matter any further. Suffice to say that as a GM you are, of course, free to use whatever house rules you deem fit in your games. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Mar 17 2005, 04:38 AM
Post
#124
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
Calm down, girl. You posted 6 or 7 paragraphs and said nothing. ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 17 2005, 04:47 AM
Post
#125
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086 |
Actually, considering the examples of barrier spells and armour spells, and that there is only one modifier for sustaining spells, then you can either have the modifier as for powering spells or utilizing abilities they give. Since the armour/barrier spell applies even if you're shot in the back, it can't be for utilizing the spell, so the modifier must be for casting and sustaining the spell. Since the levitate spell does not have an additional modifier, based on using the spell, then, we must conclude that there is no additional modifier. In short, because the modifiers are the same, your concentration to vary the effects of spells does not make sense.
You're absolutely correct. But the fact that I've laid out logical arguments in valid form does. I even wrote out the explanation as a proof for one of them.
The spell effects of levitate are: the caster can manipulate the subject of the spell. They aren't being varied, they're being used. To make using the spell impose an additional TN is like making getting shot while under an armour spell impose a +2 TN. You don't seem to have a problem with it, so, house rule it. Most people seem to think that the current system works fine, so, that's the way the system should be. Majority SHOULD rule in this, because it's meant to be fun for everyone. As a note: Nobody's said that if you ignore the subject, it keeps going (at least after someone dug up the details on the spell) -- that was your idea as I recall, for when it was put into the focus. Most of us just ignore it, I presume assuming it just hovers there like a bump on a log. As for the quote under sustaining foci: I disagree, because I place the emphasis on the word 'maintaining' it. It says nothing about utilizing the spell. It is the subject of the clause, which is modified by the 'without attention or concentration on the part of the caster', which, as far as I can tell, indicates that the spell remains until the focus is deactivated, leaving the caster able to concentrate freely on the utilization of the spell. What appears to be the source of the disagreement is that you believe that utilizing the spell is one massive complicated task that involves sustaining it -- whereas, as has been shown with examples, it is two -- the complicated task of sustaining the spell (+2 TN unless a focus is used) and the trivial task of utilizing the spell
As above, the spell effects are: The caster can manipulate the subject of the spell telekinetically. They aren't being varied. They are simply being used. That's part of why there is such strong opposition to your position. The other part of why is because nobody can comprehend why you would decide that for levitate alone, there is a +2 TN for utilising the spell, but nothing for the parts of the spellcasting which are identical to other spells such as armour or barrier. Don't you agree that if the +2 TN is based on utilising the spell, then that something is fundamentally inconsistent with: armour, barrier, analyze device, analyze truth, mindlink, mind probe, decrease/increase attribute/reaction/reflexes, hibernate, oxygenate, prophylaxis.. you get the idea of the list. Likewise, +2 for utilizing the spell would apply to anyone using the spell.. not just the caster. So, the person who just had +4 quickness from an increase attribute spell, just got +2 TNs to everything -- which doesn't make sense. I'm ignoring the semantics one, because it is just semantics. I included it because it was bugging me, that's all.
Third time: There is no part of the spell which is being varied. The spell is being used. The effect is not being changed. An analogy: You turn your car on. You start driving. You have your foot on the gas to keep moving. You can "lock" the motion of the car by turning on cruise control. You still have to drive -- but you've locked the sustaining of motion -- which is what turning on the car allows for: You to move from point A to point B.
Your entire argument reads as a violation of that point, because your entire argument is based upon the +2 TN for sustaining and using a levitate spell is based on the difficulty of manipulating the spell. If you want to make it an action with a roll to manipulate the spell, that's logical. If you want to apply a penalty to doing something else while manipulating the spell, but not have a roll, that's fine. But, recognize that it has NOTHING to do with the sustaining focus, and is IN ADDITION TO the +2 TN for sustaining a spell. Also recognize that doing so when the caster is doing nothing else would be.. well... silly, because the task, at least as far as a single object is concerned, is quite trivial? On the note of your situation: I'm impressed. Fairly well thought out situation. If the mage wants to ignore the troll with the polaxe, no different then before, and troll gets a free hit (and team falls).. Mage wants to fight back and not concentrate on the drop? No difference, team waits there in midair. Mage wants to do both? +vision mods on the team, in addition to all the combat ones is how I'd rule it. Painful. But, reasonable, considering the situation. That being said -- That is a highly unusual situation, and should be dealt with as the EXCEPTION, rather than the rule -- and using it as a basis for the rule is, well, poor, from a logical standpoint. Rather like saying that because people can die in car accidents, the speed limits everywhere should be low enough that fatalities can't happen. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 2nd February 2025 - 05:46 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.