 sustain focus, can it sustain any spell?, need some book ninja fu |
  |
 Mar 18 2005, 03:19 AM
Post
#151
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 903 Joined: 7-February 03 Member No.: 4,025  |
Umm.... what's a strawman?
|
 |
 
|
|
Mar 18 2005, 03:20 AM
Post
#152
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
How would we ever know this since the instant spell is cast, well...instantly...so it never has a chance to interfere with any other skill and cause a +2 TN?
Correct. So spells that require any amount....even trivial amounts of "concentration or attention" would disqualify you from doing exclusive actions. This is another point in my favor for why spells like levitate are simply not compatable with sustaining foci.
Cool with me, player. At least you are not ruling out the possibility that my interpretation is just as correct as anyone elses. It is a vague part of the rules that needs attention. I agree that it sounds like the TN penalty is from the generating the mana required to power the spell, but I am not convinced it is so until I see a quote stating so explicitly. And until then my interpretation has just as much validity as anyone elses by virtue of not being proven wrong. Perhaps as a compromise it is partially the mana generation and partially the concentration required to use the effects? Nobody on this thread has proven any differently. It has all been conjecture so far.
My interpretation of the TN penalty is just as canon as yours. You have yet to produce a requested quote to the contrary. In short you have no empirical evidence to prove that the TN is from powering the spell with mana and not from using the effects of the spell. If you did, you, or others, would have gleefully produced a quote proving me wrong long ago to silence my objections.
So you are avoiding my questions and admitting defeat, cool.
Actually, my interpretation of the TN penalty is just as canon as yours, nobody has produced a quote to state implicitly that the TN penalty is derived from powering a spell with mana. Sheep usually tend to flock together in herds, that so many of you blindly follow a flawed set of rules does not surprise me at all. This is exactly why a democratically elected leader like Hitler was able to lead an entire country into committing one of the worst crimes in human history. Follow your rules if you wish, but I will be thinking and questioning everything for my own. And as to being an ass, if you look back to the very beginning you will find that I have very evenly and consistently responded to every poster in the same attitude and manner they have responded to me, if you do not wish to see my ass, I suggest you put yours away.
Actually you are wrong or have not kept up with the thread. I have admitted being wrong at least three times that I can think of without going back to look, and have apologized for being rude at least once. You saying I am wrong though does not make it true, people telling me I am wrong for pages does not make it true either. Sometimes you have to swim against the current when you have a valid point worth stating. I am still waiting for a quote I asked for pages ago and nobody is able to produce anything more than conjecture and theory or insinuations until then it is not over.
The assinine opinion I am arguing is yours. Until proven differently I am interpreting canon concerning the TN penalties aspect of the debate.
No. What is ridiculous is that you assume that when someone points out something to me that they are correct. You start from a position of weakness from your own inadequacies of independent thought. Against me you will need much more than that.
I have seen very few rational arguments being used against me. Most of it has been by flaming egoists. Some of what has been said by more respectable posters like Toturi has been quite inspiring like the fact these foci can be used out of LOS for example, which is something I will get to a bit later.
Who is being patronizing here? You and your smug little gang of fan boys, or me, an independent thinker just trying to clear up a rule in a game I really like?
I can dish it out as well as take it. If you prefer a different flavor you can back off with your snide remarks. You are acting like a buffoon, and I am getting a mild laugh, at your expense. obviously you don't like it, and if I were you I wouldn't like being made into a clown either. your choice is to just stop it. I'm mostly in this thread to clear up a rule, but I have my pride, I'm a fighter, I'm not going anywhere, and I will defend myself.
Actually, if you had been following the thread, you would know that I have already clarified that statement. I do not care what a broken rule says, it is why we are here, to fix it. I do care what canon says, absolutely do, or I wouldn't be here wading thru the shit, arguing with a bunch of foul mouthed posters like you.
Sort of. You have the access to the mana which powers the spell, which is under the description of how magic works, and you have the use of the spell effects. Unless you can quote somewhere that says the TN is derived from powering the spell then I can just as easily say it is from using the effects, which is all part of sustaining a spell and equally canon. You say the +2 is from weaving the magic, I say it is from using the effects, and yes the effects are being used by the target of the spell, it doesn't matter if it is the caster or a subject, the caster must concentrate on making the spell effects happen, which causes a TN modifier regardless of who it is on.
The caster still has to concentrate to produce those effects. On the other hand the subject of a levitate spell can't "use" those effects, which is why there must be a distinction in spells that require further attention to utilize. Do you agree with this?
You haven't proven that by your current examples as I have pointed out above. You need to show me a quote that says it is so, otherwise it is just as canon to say that the +2 TN is from concentrating on using the effects on yourself or on another. Btw, I did not address your create food as it is an instant spell and would not effect any other action or skill use before it was complete.
(Thank you, I did not take it as an attack). Let me try to elaborate if I can. I am not using sustaining the spell synonymously with using the effects. I am saying that a spell like levitate requires some amount of attention to produce spell effects, ie.. lift, vector, and speed. This attention requires some concentration, which is incompatible with the stated goal of a sustaining focus. If you have to use your mind to move the object, no matter how trivial the effort (and for the record: others attempting to attack my argument have hypothesized on the degree of this effort, but NONE have shown proof to back the claims up that it is "trivial" at all) it is not conforming to a sustaining focus by virtue of it being impossible to eliminate the need for "attention or concentration" (pg 190 main book rules). My main claim, (yes, house rule, for now, canon being broken) is that if it is impossible to eliminate 100% of concentration or effort to achieve spell effects then the spell is not allowed to be sustained by a sustaining focus, and this is not setting a precedent or game breaking rule, there ARE other spells not allowed to be sustained by a focus. Only passive spells should be allowed to be "locked" by a focus, because only passive spells meet the requirements of NO attention or concentration to use. As a secondary claim I am saying "by current canon" it would at the minimum require a +2 TN for any other skill use while concentrating on producing spell effects like levitation which require active input second by second in order to utilize. This claim has led me to be attacked and ridiculed incessantly for no reason at all. I have tried to provide common sense applications of the spell in levitating a group of friends in an attempt to highlight how difficult the task would be. Die hards have returned again and again to only part of the wording under sustaining foci that says there is no concentration involved in using the levitate spell in question once it is sustained by the foci. Yes it may currently be cannon that says any spell with a target can be sustained by a foci, but thru example I have shown this to be unreasonable at best, muchkin like at worse. My counter contention to these heated attacks has always been to look at the part of sustaining foci that says it eliminates the need for "attention or concentration" (pg 190 main book rules). If a spell is impossible to use without concentrating, first it precludes the utilization of "exclusive actions", and second it will be a distraction to other skill tests, canon says a spell being sustained provides a +2 TN, nowhere does it dispute the fact that it could be from "concentrating and attention" required to manipulate the spell effects, it is a sound interpretation, fully in canon, by the very fact that once sustained by a foci this TN vanishes with other passive spells.
This is a very true statement, which is totally ignored by less thoughtful posters who jump to the conclusion that it is minimal or somehow nonexistent in a spell like levitation that requires some undetermined amount of effort to use. As I have said over and over, the rules are vague. This has earned me many attacks and flames for no reason even though I am correct.
By your own example, one magic fingers spell charges a +2 TN modifier to all skill rolls and a quickness test just to pick up smaller items. Obviously you are thinking along the same lines as I am, but can't quite come over to the dark side, so to speak. At least you are reasonable to speak with. You can't walk very fast or in a strange place while cramming for an important exam can you? yes it can be done, but it is a distraction as much as someone tapping you gently on the shoulder when you are trying to reply to my post. A gentle tap is trivial isn't it? It is a distraction though, and we are yet to see an actual quote on exactly how trivial it is. Until then there is nothing to refute my interpretation of canon over anyone elses. This is why there are so many sects in religion, won't you agree? I may be right, until the deities at fanpro speak in the errata there is little point in flaming me for having a differing interpretation is there?
Yes, thank you for at least admitting it would be difficult. I would say more difficult than juggling the same number of items, because each object would not be limited to 2 dimensional flight, there would be a yaw, pitch, angle, and speed. And according to canon, this foci can be taken out of LOS and used, according to my more rabid detractors with no concentration at all based on the one part of sustaining foci description they are chained to with their straw man arguments. But, ummmm, how can levitating 6 things at once not be related to a leviation spell? I am not sure what you are saying here?
You have me at a supreme advantage. I think rigging is one of the most boring aspects of SR there is. I would never consider even playing a rigger and have not looked at the rules, so I will decline to comment.
From the way she acts I just made an assumption. I'm still not convinced either way at this point.
Well put, let's talk canon. My interpretation of canon is that the sustaining of a spell is due to the use of the spell, not the channeling of mana. This is of key importance to part of my argument where a spell sustained/powered/"locked" by a sustaining focus does not get rid of the TN penalty if the spell is not a passive one. If the caster must attend to the spell after it is locked in a foci he gets the +2 TN. Nothing in canon I have read disproves this. Also on page 38 of the main book it says moving, weather, and other things add to TNs, every last situation is not covered there. It just makes good sense that if you have to look where your subject is going to levitate to it is a distraction. My interpretation of sustaining foci is that a spell sustained and "locked" by a sustaining focus must meet the requirements of being able to be freed from "concentration or attention". A literal word for word reading of the foci says any spell with a target that can be sustained can be sustained by the focus. I would like a clarification to say only passive spells, so this is house rule for now.
Another well stated post. Perhaps it is my fault for not being clear. But this is exactly what I thought everyone knew from the start. I stated clearly that I was here to help, and asked multiple times for others to help me. My apologies if I was not clear. Though some of what I am saying is not opinion, some of it is interpretation. As we all know interpretation of the same words have caused a multitude of religious diversity. it doesn't make what I am saying wrong.
In my defense, I did not graduate high school nor do I consider myself exceptionally intelligent. I feel I am wise, but not book smart. I had no clue this was an actual term used in conversation. That said, I am still not certain if it was used to belittle my efforts or not and when I made it clear I didn't appreciate it being used many posters started flaming the hell out of me, many did use it in a derogatory manner, of that I am certain. My example of using 6 levitates was not set up to make someone elses argument look like a straw filled an either. I just used common sense, thought like a munchkin for a moment and came up with the idea of a team of friends flying around like attack helicopters on a raid. It is perfectly legit to show the possible abuse of a system as is to highlight the changes that need to be made.
This is where I disagree with you. There are two parts to sustaining, the powering of the spell, tapping/channeling the mana, and the use of the effects which require concentration. Your own failure is to divide spells into passive and active. Nothing in canon says the +2 TN is not from using the effects of the spell in the sustaining process. The commonly held belief is that the sustaining process is mostly due to the requirements to channel the mana. It could be that, but it could also, by canon, be as I have said. So when locking the spell with a sustaining foci you can either argue that the spell once "locked" is set to do the last command given ie levitate up at 1 meter per turn, and then it requires no more "concentration or attention" as canon states, or since you must use concentration and attention it still gives the +2 TN when sustained by a foci, but no longer requires the mage to be in contact himself with mana.
You are the first person to ask this question! Thank you. No I would not allow you to automatically create the ballet successfully. I would require a quickness check with a hefty TN. I would allow your knowledge dance or ballet as a secondary skill. And you would get a +2 modifier to the final TN for each of the ballet members you were levitating required. The number of successes made would be the degree of success to the feat, with at least 1 required to even pull it off. Nearly impossible feats are TN 10. I suppose it is not an impossible feat to direct a ballet, but an aerial one, and one where you will be moving subjects around in mid air, I suppose at least an 8 or 9, then I would take other factors into play like weather, lighting, etc...
I did not read this first. We are obviously thinking alike. I said a 8 or 9.
This is where I disagree. You are correct, all the foci do is sustain the spells, they do not make any decisions on where the subjects go and intuitively place them there, the foci has no part of the effects of a spell, it was supposedly "locked" once bonded. Any further changes in effects and manipulating of the effects still would require concentration, according to canon, this gives a TN penalty. You can look on pg 38 and determine it, or look on pg 178 for your answer. Nobody has shown me that the TN is not from manipulating the effects of a spell. No quote has been produced.
I have already done that and been viciously attacked for it. The house ruling is not allowing levitate to be used in a foci because it can't conform to the rules of a foci in the fact that it can't be used without attention or concentration as to the rules under sustaining foci. It is broken and needs to be fixed.
I sort of get this concept, but I am not exactly clear how I used the straw man? Honestly. This is not for argument purposes, this is for future reference.
BS, we have already discussed as irrelevant getting an 11 intelligence.
No. Common sense tells me sheep congregate in flocks and fan boys come to each other's rescue when they are drowning. I had previously spoken with 2 other GMs aside from myself and both agreed with me when I had the chance to go over this crap in real life. Today I spoke with a third that agreed with me. That is three that agree to zero that disagree. Now, I have two other emails out to GMs so we will see how it goes electronically, but with players who know and trust me. Btw, they all assumed it was your interpretation until I pointed out the common mistake and how broken it is.
I don't know? Because you can't produce one to support your claim over mine?
All the A and B stuff was way too confusing. So let's base it on logic: 1) A spell needs mana and someone to concentrate on producing an effect for it to come to life. This is called sustaining a spell. 2) A sustaining focus provides the source of mana and "locks" a spell on auto pilot as long as there is no further concentration or attention needed to make the spell work. 3) A spell like levitate needs attention to make it work. 4) Needing attention is a distraction. 5) A distraction will cause a TN penalty to a test. 6) Sustaining a spell causes a +2 TN for the distraction of the attention required to produce an effect. 7) Using multiple spells that require concentration to maintain the effects of will be multiple distractions. Your stubborn refusal to accept the fact that there is a distraction to using a spell like levitate shows your lack of logical thinking.
And there would be no errata if they were perfect, huh? Sheeeeep.
Which is why I suggested earlier that perhaps another +1 TN modifier to active effort spells would be in order or even a +2 like magic fingers, which would cause a +4 modifier to use a skill with, +2 for sustaining a spell, and +2 for the fine detail work of using the effects. We are in a broken situation. This small inconsistency does not refute my argument or weaken it in any way. Obviously the designers overlooked passive and active spells when designing sustaining foci. More important is your refusal to accept that there would be some sort of penalty to use a levitate spell in a foci and perform another action. Your argument has holes that a truck can drive thru with room to spare.
Can you show me in canon where you got .1 TN? I think +2 is reasonable and have shown why I feel this way.
Return to your flock, ewe, you look lost without them.
See page 38. There are penalties for everything. The question is how much. Canon under spells says +2. Everything else is just fluff and flames. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mar 18 2005, 03:14 AM
Post
#153
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
Can we meet at a convention? I go to quite a few. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 18 2005, 03:27 AM
Post
#154
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
I am not familiar with Matrix rules, sorry. Movement does add a penalty to firing your weapon. And a very steep one at that, so that does not support your theory.
You started out asking a serious question and I answered it, then read this shit. What is your fucking problem any way? Grow up, kid. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 18 2005, 03:30 AM
Post
#155
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
As the center of the abuse I will be happy to tone it down. I take it stoicly for the most part, but it really is cowardly. I have a great point that I have developed and nobody has assailed it. I hope we can limit discussion to just the debate points and drop the BS? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 18 2005, 03:36 AM
Post
#156
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
Anyone left seriously debating want to answer some questions?
1) Since you can place a foci on another person and the person can travel away would you be able to use the spell levitate if he were out of LOS? 2) If you accept that there is some amount of attention required to levitate an object, can anyone find in canon how much of a distraction it would be? 3) If you believe you have to look where you are going when you are walking do you have to also look where you are levitating an object as well? 4) Does everyone agree that using a levitate in a foci would require enough concentration to preclude an exclusive action? 5) How do you justify the inconsistancy of this statement with the fact that an active spell like levitate does require some attention? (The spell locked in a foci does not need attention or concentration by the caster.) 6) What would happen to a subject you had under a mind control spell if you went to sleep? 7) What would happen to an object that was levitaing if you fell asleep while it was hovering still 50 meters off the ground? 8) If you say it would hover to answer the above question, how do you see the spell "locked" in place in a foci? More questions as I can think of them coming. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 18 2005, 03:54 AM
Post
#157
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 903 Joined: 7-February 03 Member No.: 4,025 |
What's a strawman?
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 18 2005, 04:09 AM
Post
#158
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,066 Joined: 5-February 03 Member No.: 4,017 |
Only by ritual, but then you can't cast it into the focus (both being exclusive magical acts).
As long as the object does not need special care, I see no need for a penalty. Levitating a tray that has an imbalanced vase worth millions setting on it I would give a test, but levitating a soybeer from the open cooler to your hand would not deserve a test. I know of no rule in the book, but I suggest using an intelligence test everywhere you would force a quickness test if it were being done by hand.
Only if you want to make sure it doesn't crash. Levitating a bag 1 meter directly behind you as you move would be reasonably safe even without watching it.
No, we do not all agree to that.
It may require attention, it may not. It depends on what you are doing with the spell, not the spell and focus aspect.
Assuming you mean that the mind control is focus sustained. The effect will remain until it is broken, and it will break more easily without the mage in LoS and able to reinforce the control (see spell rules, treat as out of LoS for additional resistance tests if the mage is asleep or something like that).
If sustained by a focus, it hovers until something breaks the spell or mean GMs may see if the mage dreams about moving the object. If no focus, it falls.
To be stationary in relation to a quickly spinning planet rotating around a star that is itself rotating amid the galaxy which is also drifting at high speeds takes a lot of speed depending on what is the reference frame. There is no "stationary" there is only "stationary with relation to" and the spell will retain whatever was the last relative movement until a different relevant movement is desired or the spell breaks.
More answers if I feel like it.
BitBasher (IIRC) has a link to a list of logical fallicies in his sig, it will have a better description. Paraphrased and possibly misstated, it is the process of ignoring an actual argument, countering something that has a vague similarity or two, and claiming that the original point is disproven when the actual points were never fully addressed.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mar 18 2005, 04:10 AM
Post
#159
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
Dude, I wish I knew exactly what a straw man is and had experience how it is used in context, but I don't. According to websters it looks like an insult. That's the way I took it. I hope one of the guys that used it will explain why exactly my idea was a straw man.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 18 2005, 04:12 AM
Post
#160
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 351 Joined: 17-February 05 Member No.: 7,093 |
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 18 2005, 04:32 AM
Post
#161
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
A Straw Man attack is essentially when someone attempts to refute an argument by misinterpreting the original argument, then attacking the misinterpretation. For example, suppose I state that mevement is typically not considered an action. It would be a straw man attack to attempt to refute that claim by stating that firing a gun while moving incurs a TN modifier. There are actually a number of things wrong with that argument, in particular the fact that movement does not affect any *other* test than ranged combat, including melee combat, but the reason it's a straw man is that my argument had nothing to do with TN modifiers in the first place, only with actual use of actions.
It's important to note that the fallacy is in misinterpreting the original argument, not necessarily in extrapolating from another's argument. This is why some people have difficulty recognizing how the aerial ballet is a straw man, because it is an attempt at reductio ad absurdum, which *is* a valid argumentative technique, but doesn't work simply because it makes a number of assumptions that aren't made by the original argument. The main one in this case is claiming that just because simple actions are simple, you are necessarily arguing that complex actions that are made up of many simple actions must also be simple. This is of course false, and never stated anywhere in the original argument, but is pivotal to the straw man attack used as a counterargument. There are a number of other logical fallacies that you can find excellent examples of in this thread. The ones that worry me the most though are the increasing number of ad hominem attacks, (aka "flames"), as they are usually death to rational discussion, particularly in a forum, as evidenced above. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 18 2005, 05:10 AM
Post
#162
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,144 Joined: 22-September 04 Member No.: 6,690 |
When I originally called a 'strawmen,' it was in response to the arguement suddenly involving six levitated people. A man made of straw is easy to knock down. When you are accussed of making a strawman arguement, it means you've presented an example that is easily knocked down to better prove your own point.
A:"Driving is safe." B: "No, driving is the most dangerous thing ever. No one should do it. Anyone who does is a moron trying to kill themself. How can you _not_ have an accident, even going down a straight road with a cell phone in one hand, a hot cup of coffee in the other, putting on your makeup while eating breakfast, the radio going full volume while you're looking over your shoulder to talk to two friends in the back seat?" |
|
|
|
|
Mar 18 2005, 05:21 AM
Post
#163
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
This is not to be confused with reducto ad absurdium, a valid debating technique whereby an idea is taken to a logical extreme and demonstrated to be absurd through this. Example:
A: "Driving is safe." B: "So even when you're going down a winding road in a wet snowstorm with a cell phone in one hand and breakfast in the other, a styrofoam cup of boiling coffee between your thighs, the radio going full volume while you're looking over your shoulder to talk to the kids in the back seat, it's safe?" Note the difference between showing an absurd situation and assuming that it is the only possible situation. ~J |
|
|
|
|
Mar 18 2005, 06:31 AM
Post
#164
|
|
|
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826 |
I thought a strawman was a tangent attack:
"Driving is safe." "Nothing is safe. You've got people with guns, drunk drivers, comets, and all sorts of dangerous stuff going on. People are dying left and right. How can anyone ever be safe?" |
|
|
|
|
Mar 18 2005, 06:36 AM
Post
#165
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,144 Joined: 22-September 04 Member No.: 6,690 |
That's not a bad example, but that follows my original definition: you set up an example that makes the base arguement very easy to knock down.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 18 2005, 06:58 AM
Post
#166
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 942 Joined: 13-May 04 Member No.: 6,323 |
A strawman arguement is trying to argue against a general point by chosing a specific point, then shooting down the specific point by pointing out something wrong with it that doesn't actually apply to the general arguement.
Reductio ad absurdum is trying to argue against a general point by chosing a specific point, then shooting down the specific point by pointing out something wrong with it that does apply to the general arguement. So, in this case, argueing that a sustaining focus stops you from controling the spell by saying it would lead to doing a huge ariel ballet without TN penalties is a strawman, because a GM's target number for doing an ariel ballet really doesn't have anything to do with whether using a sustaining focus allows control of the spell. Reductio ad absurdum might be used if someone made a house rule that allowed the armour spell to count as hardened armour, stacking with all other armours... you might say "if you did that, you could have gel packed security armour and a force 6 armour spell, and be immune to virtually every non-vehicular weapon." This just takes an extream aspect of the rule, and shows how it would be unbalanced. JaronK |
|
|
|
|
Mar 18 2005, 07:08 AM
Post
#167
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 18 2005, 07:45 AM
Post
#168
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,144 Joined: 22-September 04 Member No.: 6,690 |
Doing the math, I actually have no problem with a mage having absolutely no penalties (under normal circumstances. If they start having to dodge trolls, or do ballet, that's different) for manuvering multiple people with Levitate spells locked in a sustaining focus.
One big reason is the speed of a levitate spell. Each turn a Levitated object can move Meters x Successes (limited by force). Risking magic loss for Focus Addiction occurs when you have more active foci than 2x your magic rating, and you check for magic loss every round. So, every round you're using six F6 Foci imbued with F6 Levitate, you have to roll against TN 18 to avoid losing a point of magic. So, living dangerously, our example mage with his Magic 6 could use six F2 Foci imbued with F2 Levitate, and not risk magic loss. However, he won't be able to move anyone faster than 2 meters a turn. Defenitly no ballet happening there. Sustaining Foci are also set for one specific spell when they're bonded. If you want to change the spell it sustains, you have to spend more karma. They're also not cheap to begin with: Forcex15,000 nuyen. This seems like pretty definte proof that it's really hard to go munchin with Levitate and foci. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 18 2005, 07:45 AM
Post
#169
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Eh? I'm getting 12 meters/turn.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Mar 18 2005, 08:40 AM
Post
#170
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,144 Joined: 22-September 04 Member No.: 6,690 |
Awwww fudge! Well, that's a perfectly good arguement shot to shit. It's Magic attribute x Successes (limited by force) = Meters per turn. How long have I been figuring that wrong? (don't tell me, I don't want to know). So yeah, in example 2, they'd be going 12 meters a turn, not 2. At that speed you could probably get a good sized square dance going. I'm pretty sure the rest of my arguement holds though.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 18 2005, 08:52 AM
Post
#171
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 942 Joined: 13-May 04 Member No.: 6,323 |
Yes, you could squaredance, but I think the quickstep might be too fast. Whee.
JaronK |
|
|
|
|
Mar 18 2005, 11:55 AM
Post
#172
|
|||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
Well, I hadn't considered the speed being important to the argument, so doing Swan Lake is questionable at walking pace, navigating thru a tangle of high power lines is not though. This begs a further question though. Does the foci have the power to generate a "hover" effect on it's own, or would the spell effect disappear when the caster stopped concentrating on manipulating the effects of a levitate? And do you need line of sight to guide where the object is going or not? If you are flying a kite and the wind suddenly stops blowing even a kite, though aerodynamically deigned to catch the slightest current and even use falling wind resistance to float on, will plummet to earth. I suggest every time you blink and remove your eye from the task, or your mind wanders to the piece of ass you got last night your subject is getting jolted with free fall, because the spell does not work on auto pilot in any way shape or form. You can't look at a 10 meter stretch envision your object moving there and look away for most of the round. You have to constantly "push" the object along with concentration. And further, the whole point was to gain a TN penalty to other actions, like dodging trolls and studying for calculus exams. You just agreed with me. Where I feel you are wrong, is that you can't divide your attention good enough to "concentrate" on 6 different objects moving at different directions and elevations, even possibly out of your line of sight. You may think you can do it because your straw man argument has them moving slow, but in reality it would require an intelligence check with a +2 TN for each division of your minds computational powers.
Would this qualify as being a straw man argument? You are assuming Force 6 or even Force 2 and saying the speed is a factor in the amount of "concentration" required to exert constant levitation to an object. This sets up an argument that is easier to win, but it has noting to do with whether there is a TN penalty to establish constant "concentration" to levitate an item, which means your attention would be diverted for the entire length of a turn spent levitating and is therefore not the argument. Just curious.
This seems like pretty definite proof of a straw man argument, according to the definition you players have given. The munchkin potential is still there. We have not even barley touched on mind control spells yet, which I plan to get to later.
Not only have you been shown to be wrong in your straw man example you gave, but your math is clouded as well. And is it that movement rate per action or is it that rate per turn? The potential difference is quite large, at least doubling if not tripling your rate of speed. A Force 2 spell is roughly able to propel an object at 8 miles an hour. Hardly square dance pace, but not sprinting either. Tango anyone? That assumes you only get 1 action a turn, and that assumes you are only a starting character with a 6 magic rating. If you had a power focus or grades of initiation it goes up. But this is a straw man argument designed with the supposed intent of making it easier to shoot down some aspect of my argument with an absurd example that has nothing to do with my argument. It has comically backfired due to inadequate thoughtfulness at doing even that though. Please correct me if I am wrong. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Mar 18 2005, 11:54 AM
Post
#173
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
Oh calcs = Magic attribute of 6 Force 1 levitate spell in Force 1 foci. 6 x 1 = 6 meters per action.
Just 1 action = 6 meters in 3 seconds. 6 x 20 = 120 meters per minute. 120 x 60 = 720 meters per hour, which is roughly 4 miles per hour, which is a bit faster than a walk. Two actions a round would put it above jogging rate at 8 miles an hour, this with a Force 1 foci and Force 1 spell only. Double this for a Force 2 in the above strtaw man example. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 18 2005, 01:03 PM
Post
#174
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 401 Joined: 7-June 02 From: Living with the straw sheep. Member No.: 2,850 |
Why would the focus need the "power" to "generate" a hover effect "on its own"? It's sustaining a levitate spell which has already been cast into it! The power needed to generate the hover effect has been provided by the magician (who suffered drain to cast the spell and spent karma to bond the effect to the focus). As to "concentrating on manipulating the effects of a levitate": there is no evidence anywhere in canon that the caster needs to concentrate to manipulate the effects of a levitate. The caster would, obviously, need to use free, simple, or complex actions to perform tasks using the spell, but which action is for a GM to decide, neh? There is evidence that performing telekinetic manipulations is more difficult than performing the same manipulations with your own hands. It's not the same thing, however, as saying that using telekinetic manipulations requires concentration. After all, Magic Fingers hardly gives you a very precise ranged sense of touch, does it? Would that account for the unnamed +2 penalty? Is there any need to assess an additional penalty for any other use of Magic Fingers, given that the rules have already specified just what penalties should be assessed? Is your actual question: "Would the focus continue to generate a levitation effect independent of the caster's concentration?" ? There are two perfectly valid interpretations of the canon rules that answer your question. The only problem is that one interpretation says yes, the other says no. My take on it: Would you drop something just because you stopped thinking about it? (This seems an appropriate analogy) Pick the one you like, be happy, and stop shouting at people who disagree with you about it. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 18 2005, 01:06 PM
Post
#175
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
The Movement of the spell (and all movement) is calculated per turn, not per action. Movement is divided evenly over the entire turn, based on the maximum amount of passes in that turn, hence more actions does not in any way equate to more speed per turn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 2nd February 2025 - 03:23 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.