 sustain focus, can it sustain any spell?, need some book ninja fu |
  |
 Mar 18 2005, 01:13 PM
Post
#176
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 401 Joined: 7-June 02 From: Living with the straw sheep. Member No.: 2,850  |
And that still screws with my head...
The whole "moving at 18 metres per turn and then I drop prone as my free action at the end of the first initiative pass" thing... |
 |
 
|
|
Mar 18 2005, 01:19 PM
Post
#177
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,144 Joined: 22-September 04 Member No.: 6,690 |
That's movement over the entire turn (it says 'turn' specifically in the description, not 'action'). So at Force 3, you'll be flying at the speed of a full out run.
If it helps any, just because you drop prone, doesn't mean you do it elegantly. Watch out for rug burn. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 18 2005, 01:48 PM
Post
#178
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 401 Joined: 7-June 02 From: Living with the straw sheep. Member No.: 2,850 |
I know...
The fun part happens if you spend an action to get back up and keep moving... Fortunately, my players are lazy and never actually bother to keep track of just exactly where their characters are and what they're doing...they just trust me when I tell them what's going on and pull numbers out of my posterior. Either they're far too trusting and lazy, or I'm doing something right. I suspect the former... |
|
|
|
|
Mar 18 2005, 02:52 PM
Post
#179
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
Rory you are missing a fine point. You are attempting to define (along with everyone else) just what 'sustaining' as spell entails. It is never said what it entails. You are simply 'sustaining' it.
The +2 sustaining penalty comes from sustaining a spell, not from channelling mana into it, concentrating on it, having physical strain due to mana coursing through you into it, having a headache, or even thinking about your last hot piece of ass. Its from sustaining the spell. Using a sustaining focus to sustain a spell, allows the focus to take over sustaining the spell for you, removing that penalty. "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." Thats you. Show me the quote that says you must concentrate on the motion of the object for the entire duration of its journey. Why can't you simply think "Move 10 meters that way." Then proceed to ponder ass, calculus, and Bubba the Love Troll while said object moves that direction at whatever rate of speed it can. Canon doesn't say. The other problem with your arguements, is you're going off what isn't said. You are using common sense, but common sense is not actually all that common, and is dismissed in a structured debate, as well as usually on a forum. This drops your position back to what isn't said, just as easily, I can say, 'Canon doesn't give you any TN penalty for eating food while trying to do anything, there should be one. Canon doesn't disallow it, and I want to make them roll their body to avoid choking on that soydog too. Canon doesn't say you don't, so it must be true.' Thats the problem with your position, and I don't think most people conciously can spot it, but the realize it as a weakness in your arguement, but fail to see it in order to point it out. Canon implicitly denies anything that isn't specified. Sustaining a spell is done by sustaining it, not concentrating or anything else. Running around is done without any actions, however performing actions may have penalties associated with them for running while you do them. Canon also doesn't divide sustained spells into simple and complex ones. They're all simply 'sustained'. Stating that levitation takes any more effort than armor, is basing off 'common sense' which while I agree with, it is not canon which is the discussion at hand. Cannonly, you can levitate an object through a sustained focus without any penalty. It doesn't say how you levitate the object, so you can do it in a way that requires effectely no concentration on your part. Even out of line-of-sight you can, as its the focus sustaining it. The spell has been cast and is sustained, allowing the caster to move the target. You're almost garunteeably hit something with them, but you could make them float around. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make, is that simply because canon omits something, defaultly denies it as false. Everybody is wrong about what it takes to sustain a spell, because to sustain a spell, you must sustain it, incurring a +2 penalty. Nothing else is said, make up whatever flavor text you want to explain it, none of it can be used for common sense arguements either. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 18 2005, 03:35 PM
Post
#180
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086 |
That's like saying that just because someone is arrogant and antisociable, their argument that 'drugs are bad because they (insert long speech about the side affects of street drugs)' is wrong or irrational. Quite simply, it's not the case.. the person delivering the argument is irrelevent to the argument.
It's theoretically possible that your interpretation could be supported by canon. Now... how do you get a +2 TN from giving someone else 'increased quickness' as per the spell? The caster isn't even the subject of the spell, or controlling the affects of the spell, all he can do is drop the spell.
Not ignored. Simply taken as that -- it's not said. Logically, if they thought it was important, they'd have said it. They didn't, so until they decide something and post an errata, it stays as 'unimportant' to my mind.
Dictionary.com: sustaining: 1. To keep in existence; maintain. 2. To supply with necessities or nourishment; provide for. 3. To support from below; keep from falling or sinking; prop. 4. To support the spirits, vitality, or resolution of; encourage. 5. To bear up under; withstand: can't sustain the blistering heat. 6. To experience or suffer: sustained a fatal injury. 7. To affirm the validity of: The judge has sustained the prosecutor's objection. 8. To prove or corroborate; confirm. 9. To keep up (a joke or assumed role, for example) competently. How does any definition of sustaining imply utilizing aspects of it? If you want to house rule that sustaining means 'sustaining and using', feel free. That's changing the definition of sustaining. Personally, definitions 1 and 2 make sense, the rest don't really. Neither even remotely implies using anything granted by the spell.
Forgot to explain the term used to describe the reasoning I gave (I thought the example would do): Counter-Factual. It's a form of argument thatis not supported, because it did not happen. It's typically only used in the past. It's a 'what if' style argument. 'What would happen' 'What would have happened' and so on.
If you can't understand set theory (I think it was grade 10 that I learned it), then that's a whole different problem. The logic, on the other hand, is university level. Now, analysing it at that level, your list of premises (statements which are part of the argument) is incomplete. You don't draw any conclusions from it. Also, it appears to be a chain style argument -- one premise roughly supports the next, and the argument fails when one premise is proven false. Now.. point by point.. 1) True 2) True -- but irrelevent. The spell produces the affect of 'this object moves where the caster wants it to'. It requires no additional concentration to produce THAT EFFECT at any given point. 3) True 4) True 5) False. Getting waved at is a distraction. Having someone shouting obscenities at you is a distraction. Neither of those applies TN penalties. 6) True. Levitate, affect produced 'caster can move the object with his mind' 7) True. Multiple spells are multiple affects. Multiple levitates, multiple spells to be sustained with affect 'caster can move the object with his mind'. The problems with the argument are 5 -- it's a false statement, so 6 and 7 (and the implied conclusion) are invalid (they don't matter). A true statement is 'A distraction MAY cause a TN penalty to the test'. Beyond that, all of your statements aren't relevent. They are conceptually related -- they all pertain to sustaining spells or the levitate spell, but they aren't logically related. I can't teach you logic -- I don't have that kind of time, and from your statement about not understanding mine, you wouldn't be able to understand the tools used -- one of which is using symbols to get rid of fluff in statements.
Changing their mind is irrelevent -- they created the world, what they say goes. If they decide after a while they don't like something, or that something was vague, that's their business. They aren't obligated to clarify things because someone misinterprets the word 'sustains'.
True enough, you could rule that way. But that's a whole different argument, and not one I'd care to argue, because I don't see any ... major.. problem with it. Now, if you decided to lump all that into 'sustaining' the spell, and make it invalidate foci... THAT I would argue. Sustaining foci sustain it. If you think an additional +1 or +2 for using the affects while doing something else is called for, then house rule it. The argument position you've been taking is different then that, and has been attacked time and time again. In part, at least in my case, because the way you seem to define it, whenever you're sustaining the spell, you have the 'using it' penalty too.. which doesn't make sense, because you can cast the spell on something and not levitate it away -- and you'd still have +2 for sustaining.. but you shouldn't have ANY for 'using'. Likewise, the arguments I've made have been sound. You don't agree with part of the basis for them -- that doesn't mean there are 'truck sized holes', it just means you disagree with something that I use in the argument. In case you haven't noticed the specifics of my arguments -- I don't touch on using skills for the spell. I personally am assuming that a GM will make me do a skill check to do something complicated. What I don't agree with is trying to say canon supports a +2 TN -- it doesn't. It allows it, since it allows GMs to add any TNs they feel are appropriate, but it doesn't SUPPORT it. Likewise, just because they don't say something doesn't mean they overlook it. They might not have cared -- they seem to have something for magic fingers, so it seems more likely, and more reasonable, to assume that they don't think it matters with levitate. When I suggested a +.1 TN, it's based on my personal believes which indicate that it is fairly trivial. It's quite possible that Shadowrun requires a heavier degree of concentration then I think is needed -- but there's nothing to support that, so I don't think it's worth it. I consider it much like typing. I'm thinking and typing at the same time, at about 80 wpm right now, since I don't feel like rushing. I can type at 120 wpm when I want to, and have multiple things going on to distract me -- and I don't consider willing something to move to be any worse then those. Just to make it more clear, canon doesn't have an additional modifier, so canon either doesn't think there should be one, or thinks it's too trivial to include. Doesn't mean you can't disagree and impose one, just means that canon doesn't have it. I side with canon, you've seen my reasoning, you disagree with the difficulty I assign. I wouldn't game with you, but that's just personal taste. edit: Bleh.. I don't have time to deal with the quote tags not being read as quote tags. Maybe I'll fix it later... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mar 18 2005, 03:46 PM
Post
#181
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
Theres your problem. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 18 2005, 03:55 PM
Post
#182
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086 |
Thanks Tarantula
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 19 2005, 07:14 AM
Post
#183
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
You tell me. According to most of my opposition there is little, if any, concentration needed to move an object. This hints that the foci is somehow able to fill in the blanks where your lack of concentration is needed to manipulate the spell effect. Under the spell levitate it says you can move objects in the casters line of sight. If line of sight is a requirement, then using vision is an unchangable aspect of the spell. Using vision requires you to use vision to move objects. If you stop using vision the objects stop moving. This is why I asked the leading question about the foci having some sort of extra powers, to explain how the levitate spell must work according to my opposition's broken version. So far I have not read anything that explains it enough to satisfy me.
As I mentioned above. Why does it state in canon that the object must be in line of sight to be moved? If there is no concentration involved in moving an object there should be no need to use your eyes. Common sense tells you that if you are moving an object thru a maze or over an obstacle you need to see and guide the object to it's destination. This requires concentration, and since spells in sustaining foci do not require concentration a levitate spell is incompatible with foci or the penalties for sustaining the spell are not lost by bonding and locking it to a foci.
You are contradicting yourself. It is loud and clear, blatantly "obvious" to me the caster needs to use an action to use a spell like levitate in a foci. An intelligence check at least. Above you ignore LOS restriction and say there is no canon evidence that says you must concentrate on the spell, and now you say it is an action of some sort. Which is it?
Huh? This has nothing to do with the argument. Telekinetic manipulations are more difficult than physical manipulations, but that statement does not mean telekinetic manipulations require concentration. What's your point? I disagree with you though. If the subject of the spell is required to be in LOS it requires concentration to manipulate it. Zero effort equals zero output.
The additional +2 TN in magic fingers has nothing to do with the penalty for concentrating on the spell, that is for problems in fine control.
This is not an appropriate analogy. Would a helicopter fly if you stopped flying it? Without the human input the spell effects are dead in the water, no matter how much fuel the spell/chopper has. A vacum claener can be powered and turned on, but without someone to push it around it does nothing but stand there sucking up empty air. Get it?
I am perfectly at peace with the choice I have made. And I don't see how it is possible to yell at people in print? I certainly don't flame posters who do not flame me if that is what you are insinuating? Whether they agree or disagree with me does not change how I respond to anyone. I am the same to all.
That's fine. It has nothing to do with the argument other than you did exactly what you accused me of by mentioning the speed involved. It is a straw man argument.
I don't see that in canon. I don't see any difference in the concentration involved in using the spell as the +2 TN modifier.
But it also says it takes away the concentration and attention, which is impossible to do with levitate, so a levitate would not work in a foci. Only passive spells would.
According to the spell description, the object must be in LOS to be moved. If you close your eyes you no longer have line of sight and the subject will stop moving by canon. Show me where you can send something on auto pilot. And explain what would happen if it was intercepted, if all you have to do is visualize where it goes and close your eyes. No, you are forgetting the object must be in LOS. Every time you blink the object will plummet to the ground. By canon. This tells us that it requires constant concentration. Requiring concentration is directly at odds with sustaining foci, so either levitate is not allowed to be used with a foci, or it still has the +2 TN modifier for sustaining concentration on the spell.
You could say that, but you would be wrong according to canon on page 38 of the core rule book under TNs. There is nothing wrong with my argument. The rule is the problem because of it's contradictions and vagary.
If I had a weakness in my argument someone would have exposed it by now, but I have been able to refute everything said so far. I hardly call using common sense a weakness.
Just like levitating has penalties associated with it for moving about while you perform other actions.
You are either trying to use a broken rule to say I am wrong, or you are supporting the same? I can't quite figure which it is. Either way, I have never said there were simple or complex spells, I have said there are passive and active spells, without the support of a foci they both require constant concentration to produce the effects. Only passive spells can be placed into foci and conform to the rules due to the requirement of continued concentration to produce spell effects on non passive spells. I quite honestly don't know any easier way to say that.
First I would not make that assumption at all. That is conjecture, unsupported by canon. That interpretation quite literally ignores LOS restriction stated in the text of the spell description.
You are changing the spell. please reread it. It is not a simple LOS spell it says line of sight is needed to move objects in the description of the spell. Close your eyes and LOS is broken. The ride could get quite bumpy if the caster is prone to hay fever. Don't make the mistake of giving more ability to the foci than it has. There is no auto pilot function or ability granted by the foci. I have no idea how the spell could be "locked" in place in the first place since the spell needs constant input to change it's effects, which require no concentration, and no LOS...? Also, for support and reference, I went back to second addition to read the levitate description and found this quote; "A magician can move a levitated object anywhere as long as the spell is maintained and the target stays in view". True this is third edition, but it is helpful to point out the obvious. Common sense tells you that it is impossible to move an object with your mind if you don't even have to look at where the object is going. That is all I have been trying to say all along. If you have to watch a flying object to keep it flying you can't even walk safely let alone fight a troll.
Only if you ignore a whole bunch of canon and common sense.
No it is like saying exactly what I said. Many posters are here attacking the messenger without adding anything to the debate at all. Just because I disagree with a person's argument is no reason to oppose everything I say or feel threatened. There is no shame in losing a debate with me by those who know me. I sense much of the flaming is generated by out of control egos rather than rational thought, that is a common youthful mistake.
The caster is controlling the effects of the spell. If those effects could be "locked" as required by a sustaining foci he could allow the foci to sustain it for him even though it is still attached to his aura by an astral thread.
Which doesn't make you correct in your interpretation, nor does it make them logical for forgetting or not considering this problem. If that were true there would be no errata at all and no need to debate broken rules.
First, this is a straw man argument right? Dictionary dot com does not deal with magic or SR game concepts or terminology. If I give you a set of American auto manufacturing standards for the minimum surface area of rear view mirrors and then ask you a question on European rear view window design is that fair? There may be similarities, but every aspect will not be covered.
Well, I only barely passed 10th grade. I am not proud of that. The only reason I did pass that grade is because I was a state champion wrestler and the head coach and assistant coach both passed me in their classes so I could continue into the next semester and still be able to wrestle. I got the back of my head slammed into a wall locker when the coach palm punched me on the forehead for it he was so mad. That didn't seem to spur me to higher education though, so I am at a disadvantage to someone of your caliber... My point is, you can act smarmy and all high and mighty with me all you want, but logic I have plenty of. Don't even try to insult me that way, smart boy.
I was born in the 50s. That means I have lived in 6 decades now. I always say that I can learn something from a younger man. I'm sure I might of missed a thing or two down thru the years. But if you are trying to sound superior, you can stuff that where the sun don't shine, it don't impress me a bit.
This doesn't mean my interpretation of sustains is wrong and it doesn't mean that they didn't over look this part of foci, or not think they were being clear that non passive spells would not work in foci as the rules exist now.
This is a good point. But it is just as easy to assume having a spell in the constant ready position takes as much concentration to keep it in some sort of holding pattern.
I think it more reasonable to assume they over looked something this powerful. Or else they assumed the rules were clear enough that non passive spells are not allowed in spell foci at all. That sounds much more reasonable to me.
Considering the movement penalty just for walking and firing I would say a lot more. +2 is supported by my interpretation, and it is fair as well, even other of my opponents have agreed to that even if you don't. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mar 19 2005, 04:17 PM
Post
#184
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086 |
A couple major points: 1) Saying levitate in a sustaining focus can move only in LOS is a funny issue, because you don't need to see to move anything. You can still open a pop can with your eyes blindfolded, or even write (although it's not usually neat). It can be argued either way -- it depends on how you define telekinetic manipulations. If it's 'move it up/down/right/left/sideways' then it shouldn't need line of sight, if it's 'move it over there' then it should. But, that's a non-issue really. The spell doesn't end when it goes out of line of sight, according to canon. You still have the ability, it's just not useable until you can see the object again. 2)
I bolded the part I consider most relevent -- the word can under Target Numbers. What that means, logically and grammatically, is that there is that it changes the target number a measurable amount of the time. It doesn't mean that it will, just that it can. 3) Nowhere in sustaining foci does it say that it removes the need for all concentration and attention. What it says is that it maintains the spell without concentration and attention. That one specific case of attention -- the only one, in terms of spells like armour. In the case of control thoughts, control actions, and levitate, it may or may not be the only one, depending on how you decide. Any argument that sustaining foci preclude concentrating on something other than maintaining the spell is counter to canon -- because what sustaining foci do is explained quite well, and is quite specific to 'maintaining' the spell. It even says in the next paragraph that: 'The owner casts the spell, activating the focus, which then automatically sustains the spell.' That's all it does.. it doesn't use the spell, it doesn't affect the use of the spell. If it did something more than that, then it would have to be specified. Now, on to specific points:
I disagree with your premise that telekinetic manipulations are more difficult then physical? Why is that? To physically manipulate someone you have your own physical limitations, whereas telekinetics have no such physical limitations. If you want an example, arm length for a large box with no hand holds. Likewise, there's no way to argue that using telekinesis is more difficult then using your hands -- unless you know a telekinetic and have asked. I don't know any -- but from my experience, psychic abilities are non-issues to use.
Um.. You're right, canon doesn't say it's from sustaining the spell. But, levitate requires all the same things as armour, plus the possible inclusion of 'using it' -- barrier just requires sustained, which has a +2 modifier, so levitate must require sustained, for a +2 TN. Anything that gets around that is broken, because then you open the door to designing spells that are easier to sustain -- because levitate would imply that it is possible.
'may' is the key word there. It's not 'will' or 'does', those aren't even mentioned. If you invoke a running modifier on an athletics test for running faster, you're just being silly. Shooting on the other hand, yes, gets a running modifier, because you have to compensate for your motion and momentum, and their motion.
Blindfighting applies -- you look at the object, not the troll. And... I can walk backwards, without hitting things? Can't run backwards, but that's a problem with the way knees bend -- don't know if I could run blindfolded, but I expect if I knew the area reasonably well I could.
Please do not say that canon must be ignored without ever quoting said canon. The stuff on p.38 does not support your argument, it simply allows for a GM to impose a TN based on your argument. It's quoted at the top of this post.
What you said is that almost everything has just been from egoists. That is not the same thing.
How? The effects of the spell, in numeric terms, are easy-- +x quickness. But in game terms? The subject is moving faster, so he's running faster, he's dodging more, he's reacting faster. He's doing better in everything quickness based. And, the most important part, the caster doesn't get to decide if the subject uses any of these increased abilities. The caster doesn't even know, unless he's watching. If the caster was controlling the effects, the caster could decide that the subject IS grabbing the foci off the other mage's neck -- or at very least, influence the caster to that. This is an example of 'Reducio Ad Absurdum' -- reduce to an absurdity. It's a form of counterargument that involves taking something someone said, and without using anything which is not certain, derive a contradiction, which should be obvious in this case: the caster cannot influence the subject with the spell.
It's not a straw man argument -- It's including a definition of a key word. Dictionary.com does not deal with magic, or games terminology, it deals with definitions of words-- and without any evidence to the contrary, all words have the same meaning in SR terminology as in normal useage. Sustaining is not redefined anywhere. Sustaining a spell is given an explanation in terms of sustaining -- and since sustaining is not redefined, it must therefore use the standard meaning. Unless the meaning of the word changes at some point, it's a very valid consideration. But, for the meaning of the word to have changed, it would have to be explicity stated.
Whether or not you passed high school, and the reasons behind it, is not relevent (although it does justify the concept of charity in assuming you weren't just ignoring the entire argument because you didn't like it). What is relevent, is that I'm trying to explain using precise logical terminology and techniques, but you're rejecting them because you aren't aware of them. That is what many people were getting at, without knowing your particular circumstances. Most everyone who quoted any time of logical fallacy, has at least a moderate awareness of what those fallacies are, and in general it is assumed that any other person will have an equivalent knowledge in those fallacies -- if only because they are capable of looking them up. Likewise.. and I hate admitting this.. it was 'boy genius', not smart boy, in high school.
Sounding superior would be referencing the marks in which courses pertain to logic. What I said is a statement of fact, and an opinion which I believe is justified based on your lack of understanding of set theory, which is fundamental to several forms of logic -- unfortunately, they explained in the second half of the courses.
Are you saying that you'd apply a +2 TN to cast the spell and not even start to move it? To leaving it just sitting on the ground? Because that's the type of thing I'm referencing.
I disagree -- since 'passive' spells are referenced nowhere in canon. You're making extra distinctions and including them in canon because to your mind, it doesn't make sense not to have them. That's fine, but it's not canon, and should not be imposed upon the designers.
Walking and firing is logical -- but not because of the concentration of walking. If it was because of the concentration of walking, it would apply to every test, instead of just ranged weapons. What seems more reasonable about walking and firing, is that it is because you have to compensate for your walking, your momentum, and the momentum imposed upon the bullet. It's physics, and somewhat advanced, but I might be able to explain it. I'll give it a shot at least. When you're walking, you and everything on you is moving at a certain velocity compared to everything else. That gives momentum, which doesn't change when something leaves your hand. That's why you can throw a ball straight up while walking, and it comes down on your hand, as long as you are moving at a constant speed and the throw isn't high enough that friction slows it down. But, that also means that throwing a ball straight sideways while walking (for instance, a target), at the exact moment you pass the target, will not strike -- no matter how good your aim while stationary. The ball continues to go forward at the same velocity you did, as well as sideways towards the target.. so it will strike beside the target. Now, expand that onto bullets over a larger distance, and you start to see where the modifier comes in. You can't aim AT the target, you have to aim relative to the target. Running is worse because the velocities are higher. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mar 19 2005, 04:32 PM
Post
#185
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,066 Joined: 5-February 03 Member No.: 4,017 |
Line of sight does not mean you must be looking at it. It just means there must be an uninterrupted path for light to travel between mage and target. The mage must also know of the object, so it is much easier to be looking at the target as you cast the spell (cuts down on the GM deciding to apply blind-fire penalties to your sorcery test). With some spells, actually seeing valid targets is irrelevant, like manaball can and will hit targets behind you if you center the spell on yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 19 2005, 07:17 PM
Post
#186
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 376 Joined: 14-July 03 Member No.: 4,928 |
Ummm - nope - Manaball is LOS. If you can't see the target, you can't affect it, even if you know it is there. Elemental Manipulation spells however, will work like this - they are treated as ranged combat - so you can hit targets you aren't even aware of, much less can see. As for this whole arguement - The Focus just sustains the spell for you - you don't lose control of the spell. I look at it as the difference between a golfer carrying his own clubs, or using a caddy to carry them for him. The caddy merely saves him the effort of carrying the clubs on top of all the walking, etc. Directing the caddy to wait, follow you, move over there, hand you a club etc wouldn't impose an TN to anything else, just as screaming when you attack in melee, shouting while firing a gun, gesturing with a free hand while shooting a pistol, etc doesn't impose a TN modifier. Moving something around with levitate in a sustaining focus IMO would simply be a free action, just like a street sam with Smartlink-2 and a smartlinked firearm would use a free action to cybernetically eject a clip. If someone wants to do the big levitate ballet dance and all the spells are sustained by foci, then they would have a target number to achieve this, just like someone using a Juggle skill trying to juggle 6 balls at the same time would have a TN to accomplish this without dropping a ball. That TN for juggling is purely up to the GM. Moving someone through a complicated maze without touching walls or hitting alarm laser beams - that would be Test, with a TN determined by the GM. As for walking/running while firing TN modifier that's because as you walk or run, your shoulders, hips, knees and head all bob up and down.... as your weight transfers from one leg to another your hips and shoulders change angles - one side goes up and the other goes down slightly. All those those things royally screw up your aim. Just watch any video where the cameraman is walking or running - the picture bounces up and down and side to side... and that's what your view is when aiming, and why the TN modifers for walking/running. That TN modifier is for ranged combat - it doesn't apply to casting spells, except for Elemental Manipulations, which are treated as ranged combat. When it comes to casting spells, there are no Canon Target Modifiers for walking or running at all, with the exception of Elemental Manipulation spells. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 19 2005, 07:37 PM
Post
#187
|
|||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,066 Joined: 5-February 03 Member No.: 4,017 |
You misread my comments (or I mistyped them). Manaball hits every valid target in the sphere to which there is LoS from the caster. The caster does not need to be looking in that direction, just that there must be a path. Elemental manipulations only need LoS to the detonation point, and can hit targets to which there is no LoS from the mage. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 19 2005, 07:41 PM
Post
#188
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Interesting. Do you have a quote backing that? I would follow that up with a question about where LOS is considered to originate from, but that's a question that has already been determined to have no canon answer.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Mar 19 2005, 07:52 PM
Post
#189
|
|||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 86 Joined: 8-January 05 From: St. Paul, MN Member No.: 6,949 |
Sorry, that's wrong.
Emphasis mine. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 19 2005, 08:17 PM
Post
#190
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 351 Joined: 17-February 05 Member No.: 7,093 |
This interesting ruling in the FAQ brings up some questions on whether either is possible or valid. Under this ruling (not the 'spell fails automatically' bit, but the other one) then you COULD hit targets behind you with a manaball grounded on yourself. You'd get a +8 TN modifier (to all targets? Or just the one you're trying not to hit?), but you could do it. Me, I would rule the FAQ silly, and say if you can't see it, you can't hit it. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 19 2005, 08:54 PM
Post
#191
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 376 Joined: 14-July 03 Member No.: 4,928 |
With Combat spells - LOS means you can see the target - i.e you are currently looking at the target; not whether there are no objects between you and the target.... otherwise you could cast combat spells in a completely dark room and still hit targets, even though you cannot see them.
To my mind, Blind Fire + Combat spells are incompatible - if you do not see it, you cannot affect it. Cover and visibility modifiers on the other hand, are another story, and do affect TNs for many spells. However, we houserule that once visibility modifiers reach +8 or higher - it is Blind Fire, but cover modifiers still stack on top of that. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 19 2005, 10:37 PM
Post
#192
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
Now that I have my books again... "As long as the caster concentrates on the spell it remains in effect." Under sustained spells. I'll amend my statement to read sustaining a spell requires concentration on the spell. This means, to sustain your armor spell, you concentrate on it. To sustaing levitate, you concentrate on it, to sustain anything else, you concentrate on it. Under sustaining foci: "A sustaining focus is used to 'lock' a sustain spell, maintaining it without attention or concentration on the part of the caster." Meaning, now the focus sustains the spell, you don't need to concentrate on the spell any longer. Under Levitate: "Levitate allows the caster to telekinetically lift an object and move it around. The subject of the spell can be moved anywhere in the caster's line of sight at a rate of" blah blah blah. I also amend my statement, you can't make anyone move that is not in your line of sight, even if they have a sustaing focus on them. Furthermore, you don't nessesarily have to look AT them to have them in your line of sight. For example, right now I'm looking at the text box that I'm typing it. I can also see a box to my lower left, a pop can, a popcorn can, 2 speakers, a yellow piece of paper, a pen, a pack of gum, some change, my computer tower, a clock, my mouse, keyboard, my hands, my cellphone, the top part of the sr3 book in my lap, my lower legs under the desk, the desk itself, 2 of the 3 drawers in the desk. The piece of paper i use as a mouse pad. That was all through peripheral vision. I didn't move my eyes at all, from the text box, while typing that. Now, moving my eyes but not my head, I can see some clothes over past the box on my left. Numerous more scraps of paper on the top of the desk, a cellphone earpiece cord, a usb cord ending, the third desk drawer, headphones next to my computer case, some CDs they're sitting on, and a piece of paper under my computer tower. All of those were in my line of sight. Sure, I couldn't specifically pick out all the scraps of paper that were mostly covered up by other things without looking directly at them, but the light reflecting off them was entering my eye, putting them in my line of sight. As long as by moving your eyes only, you could see them, they count as line of sight. Just as when driving, you focus in front of you, but you usually can spot if someone is passing you up on the side, or if your passenger points at something excitedly.
No, it isn't impossible to do. Levitate requires concentration because it is a sustained spell. The concentration required is to sustain the spell. The requirements to use the spell, are to have LOS to the target, and for the spell to be sustained. Since the focus is removing the need to concentrate on the spell for it to be sustained, all that is left is for the target to be within the casters LOS, and the caster can move them about with no effort whatsoever. Just as easily as wanting them to go from there to there.
I never said close yoru eyes, I said, think it move over there, and proceed to think about your hot ass. Look at the porn ad over on that wall over there, as long as the target is in your vision, its fine. Semantic point here: movement is defined as faster than 0 velocity. If you blink, it could be argued that they stop, and float. Why? Because staying the same altitude, as well as everything else, is not moving. Falling would constitue movement, which isn't allowed without line of sight. It does NOT tell you contant concentration. As I said before, simply because something is in your line of sight, does NOT mean you are concentrating on it. I'm certainly not concentrating on the pack of gum on my desk, or the empty popcan over there, but they're both in my line of sight, and validly I could duct tape a sustaining focus to them, cast it on them, and then use that to move my mouse around for me while I type to my hearts content.
Anything the rulebook doesn't explicitly allow, is implicitly denied. Let me say that again. If the rulebook doesn't say you can do it, you can not. Likewise, if the rulebook doesn't say if it works a certain way, it doesn't work that way. Canon says the penalty for the spell is removed with the focus. It is removed. Canon says that you can move something in LOS with your mind, you can. No penalty, as the focus removes that.
A broken rule or not. It is STILL a RULE. Rules are followed, and discussed on the boards. Just because it is broken, doesn't follow common sense, or anything else, doesn't change the fact it is a rule, and canon, and not following it is breaking the rules. By the rules, you are WRONG. That is what I am saying.
Canonly, you can levitate an object with the spell levitate. It has some restrictions, the spell must be sustained, and the target must be within LOS of the caster. Canonly, you can use a sustaining focus to sustain the spell at no penalty to the caster. Canonly, you can levitate an object using a sustaining focus and the levitate spell without any penalty. As long as the target remains within LOS of the caster.
I did not have my books with me. You do need LOS to levitate any object around. I was wrong in what I had said. Next: As long as it is in your LOS, you don't need to look directly at it. You can see a lot of things and only be focusing on one. Its possible. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mar 19 2005, 10:41 PM
Post
#193
|
|||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
Actually its with any spells.
Not if the caster could see, but can see, meaning light from the target is currently entering the casters eyes, or the caster is astrally seeing the target. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 19 2005, 11:36 PM
Post
#194
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 903 Joined: 7-February 03 Member No.: 4,025 |
Now I understand what a strawman is, thanks! Unfortunately, I expect that it won't be long before I'll need to use the term.... :D
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 19 2005, 11:46 PM
Post
#195
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
Don't let Blackhand confuse the issue, Dog. Instead of clicking on any of the links or understanding any of the explanations given to him, he seems to think "Straw Man" is just a generic term meaning "argument I disagree with." It's like it's his favorite new phrase or something, reading some of his more recent posts.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 19 2005, 11:49 PM
Post
#196
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 376 Joined: 14-July 03 Member No.: 4,928 |
Touch range spells do not require LOS. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 19 2005, 11:54 PM
Post
#197
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
Read the quote, by "any spells" I meant any spells relevant to the discussion, meaning any spells with a range of line-of-sight.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 19 2005, 11:54 PM
Post
#198
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 903 Joined: 7-February 03 Member No.: 4,025 |
Thanks Critias, et al. I did check the links. 'preciate it.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 21 2005, 01:21 AM
Post
#199
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
Though you may be able to open a pop can by feel is irrelevant. A straw man argument? The spell says line of sight. If you close your eyes your line of sight is blocked by your eye lids. By canon.
Why is it ok for you to say it shouldn't need line of sight, when the spell description clear as day says you need line of sight, but I can't suggest there should be a difference between passive and active spells without getting lynched by an angry mob?
Non issue?Unless we suspend reason and say it can be sustained by a focus in the first place, the spell otherwise DOES end when it goes out of LOS or if you stop concentrating on it. By canon. So your first "major point" is wrong. Point 2, I agree with you. I referenced the page for corroboration of my contention.
Huh? It does not say SOME of the concentration is eliminated. It says a foci will maintain the spell WITHOUT CONCENTRATION OR ATTENTION. Obviously a levitate needs attention for it to work. Nor do I interpret "locked" to mean you can change spell effects after a spell is sustained by a focus. It is simply not compatable for use with a foci.
I agree, don't leave out the part that it is "locked" or that it can't be concentrated on either though. This means only passive spells will work with foci if you think about it with logic.
I'm not asking for a penalty increase with meters per turn of movement increased. Moving it any distance in 3 seconds is enough for a penalty as far as I am concerned.
This has to be a strawman? If you can run a few steps in the dark it must mean you can move an object in the dark with your mind. If you place a foci on a friend, get blind folded, enter a large chamber where you can't see your friend, are you trying to say you would be able to levitate him? I fail to see where the foci allows you to know exactly where it is at all times. Or break the line of sight restrictions.
If you are sustaining it on your own, yes. I am saying by canon the +2 moddifier for sustaining interprets logically to mean using the spell effects. Just because the spells are not sub divided into passive and active doesn't mean those sub divisions do not exist. The designers are not perfect.
Well, we can't expect every aspect of existence to be coded into numbers can we? I would impose a penalty on you if you were walking and repairing a car, is a set number required? No. Is it canon to penalize walking and repairing a car. Yes. It is covered on page 38 as I said. It is logical and up to the referee. Should there be no penalty for walking and repairing a car? No. That would be unrealistic. Just like it is unrealistic to think you can levitate an object without looking at it and concentrating on performing the task, when the spell says the subject must be in LOS. My argument is +2 per levitation is reasonable and is canon.
Yes it does. Or it would say within a certain radius. I think my argument is supported by the original description of the spell in SR2 "A magician can move a levitated object anywhere as long as the spell is maintained and the target stays in view" The subject has to stay in view. Line of sight means just what it says, there is no line of site with blind fire. Either you can see the subject or you can't, there is no guessing.
I'll go for that. But the caddy won't hand you clubs. It just carries them since the spell is "locked". My example of a vacuum cleaner is better. You can turn it on, but if you don't push it around it just sucks empty air. Foci are designed so you don't have to do anything, ie...in your example, you don't get to even swing at the ball anymore, making levitate a useless spell to use with a foci.
That is a bad example, because it is the smart link that is making you so fast that it takes no time in game terms.
You might have a good point here. But this assumes a complex action. Others are saying it is a non action, that it is somehow even better than a free action because you could do this with no concentration like the foci description says. That is quite unreasonable and canon does not support it.
Some people are able to walk from the waist down. Tennis players are able to bounce around and focus their vision like a raptor's, where the body kind of moves and flows to keep the head stable. A better description would be having to focus on two things at once. As I mentioned above, if you were repairing your car while walking along I would apply walking penalties to the TN, at least.
I disagree. Line of Sight is what the caster is physically able to see in a straight line from his front facing. I count peripheral vision in the line of sight.
Kagentashi, has this actually been argued too? How unbelievable. If I can't even get a consensus on LOS I might as well give up with this argument.
I agree the faq is silly, but only because this applies to just the mages trying to play games with the spell and intentionally block part of the targets. I do not interpret it to mean targets behind you would be effected, they are out of line of sight legitimately, not thru holding one eye shut to not see half the area or hiding a potential target behind your hand.
I totally agree. I just also think non passive spells and foci are not compatable either.
Thank you.
Which puts it at odds with non passive spells, so in my argument makes it incompatible with them.
Thank you.
Wrong. All those things you just said were in your peripheral vision. If you can see them they are in your line of sight. If you close your eyes your eye lids block line of sight. Peripheral vision is why it is possible to even consider levitating 6 items at all. Once again, I support my argument with SR2 original description, that is a bit clearer, "A magician can move a levitated object anywhere as long as the spell is maintained and the target stays in view". Requiring line of sight is the same thing as saying the subject must "stay in view".
Great. You have given a wonderful description of peripheral vision, now imagine having to juggle with just peripheral vision. The task would be exponentially harder than physically juggling. The foci is not doing any bit of the work for you. It is only giving you the "ability" to manipulate the objects. The concentration to manipulate them is still required, and from my understanding this is the same +2 Tn for sustaining the spell. Can you write 2 different papers at the same time just because you can use both hands to scribble on two pieces of paper? The TN for doing that would get pretty high if you had 6 hands. You simply can't divide your attention that much even with using peripheral vision.
Of course, I see the point you are trying to make, but you are leaving out a critical part of the foci description. It says the spell is "locked". To me this means no more manipulating the spell. So levitate would not be compatable, because it requires manipulating and attention to accomplish that. The foci is not going to guide the subject of the spell to where you want it to go for you. You just can't give that much power to a dog brained item. Your description does not take common sense or locking into effect. If you have to even look at an object to be able to levitate it this is giving it some attention. Your brain is not capable of forming the thoughts to move the object without any effort at all as you claim. That just does not make sense at all.
Not without a TN penalty it's not fine.
No. It is your mind that is exerting the influence over the object to stay afloat and the direction and speed it is traveling. If you blink there is nothing to exert upward pressure any more. The foci does nothing, it is the caster controlling it that does all the work, which is incompatible with a foci, so shouldn't be allowed to be used with a foci at all.
Yes, you told me that before and I told you before you are wrong. "A magician can move a levitated object anywhere as long as the spell is maintained and the target stays in view" In the 3rd edition description it says the caster can move an object in his line of sight. It does not say the foci moves an object around. The caster has to take the action, which requires concentration. Do you see my point of levitate not being compatable with foci?
And levitating one object would not be much of a distraction, only a +2 to your typing skill, but if this seems excessive, keep in mind the rules are generalizations. The TN penalty has to cover all situations and uses. Imagine controlling one item to scratch your back. Another to bring the gum to you. etc...It could get complicated just sitting at your desk. To me this seems like a simple concept to grasp.
I disagree. Does breathing get covered? You can't breath unless you can show me you can. How about taking a crap? Not everything is covered, but the rules do the best they can. The task is monumental to recreate day to day life with a SR flavor to it.
The focus only removes the need to power the spell. It does not remove the brain power to utilize this type of spell. Only passive spells can be used with foci and conform to the rules of foci. You can't "lock" a levitate spell.
Actually strictly speaking, I am not wrong. On page 38 it says I can impose penalties. I have stated pages ago I am willing to consider allowing levitate with foci. It is a house rule to disallow them as I want. It is within the rules to impose a +2 TN modifier as I am logically arguing using canon.
Yes. The target must remain in view at all times.
This is only true if you accept that non passive spells can bend the rules of foci and fit in them. But nowhere does it say you lose the TN penalty for manipulating the spell just because it is powered by a foci.
I don't see that. Nor has anyone pointed it out or given a quote to support it with canon. All I have seen so far is conjecture.
I agree. But you can't blink your eyes and it must remain at least in peripheral vision. Any task you are doing with just peripheral vision only is harder, so if you try to do anything but levitate a single object you will suffer penalties.
You can't target using astral perception only onto the physical can you? This is a question. Or this would be a way to target invisible objects. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mar 21 2005, 01:51 AM
Post
#200
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
It says 'MAINTAIN the spell without concentration or attention for it to work." It says nothing about concentrtion being necessary or not to utilize the effects of the spell. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 2nd February 2025 - 03:26 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.