 sustain focus, can it sustain any spell?, need some book ninja fu |
  |
 Mar 21 2005, 02:34 AM
Post
#201
|
|||
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141  |
Cool beans. So if you can manipulate the spell to levitate an object at a certain speed, at a certain elevation, without concentration then it will fit in the focus. If you can't, then it is not compatible. Since the spell says "Levitate allows THE CASTER to telekinetically lift an object and move it around." This means it is the caster doing the concentrating, not the foci. Lifting is an action. It doesn't matter if it is with your mind or physical. You can't perform an action without concentrating on it. The foci is not intuitive enough to predict where you want the object to go. Nor is it's function to do so. |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Mar 21 2005, 02:42 AM
Post
#202
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 942 Joined: 13-May 04 Member No.: 6,323 |
Um... no. It means the caster is doing the controlling. Don't you even read the book before posting? The sustaining focus makes it so the caster doesn't need to concentrate... says it right there in the sustaining foci rules. It also says, quite clearly in what you just quoted, that the caster can move things about. So, by canon, the caster has control, and the sustaining focus covers the concentration. All this is right there in your book, plain as day. I recommend you read it some time. As to an action... I can perform many actions without concentrating. Walking, for example. Can you walk without concentrating on walking? I find breathing doesn't take too much concentration, nor does typing for that matter (I have to concentrate on what I'm typing, but not the typing itself). Now, if you need to concentrate on walking and breathing and all that, I can understand your confusion. The rest of us, however, can do those things quite easily without having to use much in the way of concentration. JaronK |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 21 2005, 03:16 AM
Post
#203
|
|
|
Karma Police Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,358 Joined: 22-July 04 From: Gothenburg, SE Member No.: 6,505 |
Wow. Impressive thread.
I think it seems to have taken a turn for the better. Rory actually managed to make some good points. It seemed hopeless at first. But heck, at this point he´s made the most sense of anybody so far. This when discussing the actuall issue, mind you. Rory you´re one touchy (and mean) bastard. The way you came back at some of the other posters was chilling. Kind of made me want to lash out at you too. I guess you could look at that as a compliment, concidering you managed to be meaner than a whole bunch of opponents. Good to see that the discussion found home again. I will take a lot of what´s been said into account when dealing with sustaining foci in the future. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 21 2005, 03:16 AM
Post
#204
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Okay, I just don't have time to respond in detail to all of this, so I'll just answer a couple of the arguments outlined above.
First, the vacum cleaner analogy. I kinda like this analogy, as it seems appropriate to liken sustaining a spell to powering the vacum cleaner, and changing the effects of the spell to pushing the vacum cleaner around. In fact, it's almost a perfect analogy in my mind, because it fits the image I have of how spells work. Unfortunately it doesn't support your argument much at all, because the analogy actually creates the clear and necessary difference between sustaining the spell (powering the vacum cleaner) and using the effects of the spell (moving the vacum cleaner around). Let's see if I can make my thoughts more clear. There are two things that have to be done to make a vacum cleaner work. First, you have to turn the thing on, and have power for it to draw on for it to suck things up. You can either plug it into the wall, same as everything else in your house, and draw off of your house current, or you can plug it into a seperate generator. This I see as analogous to how sustaining a spell works: you sustain it off of your own power source, which draws a little of your energy to sustain it (thus the +2 TN mod), or you can use a seperate sustaining focus to do it for you (no TN mods). Now, this is completely seperate from actually *using* the vacum cleaner, which is the second step. Notice that this step is entirely dependent on the appliance being used; *everything* draws on some sort of power source, but only some appliances need to be controlled to be useful. Others, like a light bulb, really don't; they just work, essentially unchanging, as long as they have power. Note, though, that even if an appliance is not constantly being controlled that does not mean it turns itself off or anything; just because you're sucking empty air doesn't mean that the vacum is turned off, just that it's idling. In fact, you can even choose *how* a device idles; the vacum cleaner can be lying on its side, sitting in one spot, or using some sort of auto-function to keep going in one direction (note that this does not require intelligence on the part of the vacum cleaner, just a model with that capability). This, again, is directly analogous to controlling the effects of spells. Some can be controlled, like Levitate, and some don't need to be, like Armor. Either way, though, spells don't "turn off" even if you're not directly paying attention to the effects. So long as they continue to be powered (sustained), they'll run essentially forever, in whatever idle mode available to it. All of this, I surmise, we already agree on; the only real point of contention is how difficult that last step is, and how the difficulty is represented in terms of mechanical effects. I contend that it's not that difficult, mostly because the book text seems to dismiss it as a trivial task, much like moving a finger is a trivial task and not mentioned anywhere. This is not to say, however, that some things you do *with* a single finger are not themselves difficult, only that moving the finger itself is not in itself very hard. You seem to think it should be difficult, regardless of what the book says or does not say, because you have come to the conclusion that using the effects of a levitate spell should be an alien thought process, one which you need a massive amount of concentration to properly employ. This, however, is not supported at all by canon; rather it is the opposite. The mage has already spent Karma and (potentially) lots of time studying his Levitate spell, to the point where it is just another skill (or perhaps subset of a skill, Sorcery). I see no reason why it shouldn't be as natural to him as moving your finger is to you. As for the ranged combat modifiers, I still maintain that the source of that modifier is due to having to compensate for 1) the relative movement of the target with respect to your center of mass, and 2) the relative movement of your gun-hand with respect to your center of mass. Sure, you can try to compensate as much as you like--and anyone would--but the movement is still there, and it makes the shot more difficult as a result. The attacker movement penalty, IMO, has nothing to do with the difficulty of controlling both your hands and feet at the same time; this is borne out by the fact that there are no corresponding modifiers for attacker movement in melee combat or, indeed, in most other tests like Perception. You'd think if concentrating on your feet was providing a significant distraction to shooting a gun, it would also provide a significant distraction to punching someone or observing someone in detail, right? Wow, this turned out much longer than I intended. And now I'm late for work. :P |
|
|
|
|
Mar 21 2005, 04:24 AM
Post
#205
|
|
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
Canon magic doesn't need to make sense. All it has are rules that you follow. Some spells broken? Perhaps. Change them? Not canon, unless you are the developer/author.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 21 2005, 05:17 AM
Post
#206
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086 |
Point 1: The stuff referring to LOS and levitate:
Not a straw man argument -- actually, not even an argument. I'm not attacking anything, I'm actually pointing out the various reasons why the rule could be considered broken. I don't particularly care either way. The reason I say it's a non-issue. Because it is. Any spell can be sustained close to indefinately, but you can't move the target without line of sight by canon. Just because you can't manipulate it at some point doesn't mean the spell isn't being sustained, it just means you can't manipulate it for a minute. The spell affect and the useability thereof are different. Understand that. Point 2: My point 2, about page 38 You missed the point -- although I should have been more clear. What I said was that it happens a measurable amount of the time. What you should have realized is that it also DOESN'T happen a measureable amount of the time. So things that affect a task DON'T always apply TN modifiers. Point 3: sustaining foci description If you can't grasp the grammar.... Go back to school and take some basic english classes. Do not take a fragment of a sentence and apply it to the universal. Just don't. It's a grammatical mistake. What the sentence says is that it MAINTAINS THE SPELL WITHOUT CONCENTRATION OR ATTENTION. It does NOT say that it removes all concentration and attention. It doesn't say that it can't be concentrated on. It ONLY says that it removes it as far as maintaining the spell. Any other interpretation is wrong according to the rules of grammar for the english language. If you're speaking some other language, then find yourself someone to translate. Point 4: Blindfighting, walking backwards, etc.. The walking backwards, blindfighting, etc.. You missed the point again. I'm indicating that there are tasks you can do without looking. The line above, 'blindfighting applies'.. as in, you can fight the troll without looking, thus maintain LOS with what you're doing. Point 5: Miscellanious +2 manipulation via levitate modifier.. My gods I don't even want to touch how far you missed the point by with this one... I ask you about applying a +2 modifier to using levitate as well as sustaining it, and you don't even touch it. Would you apply a +2 modifier to using levitate even if you haven't started moving something yet? Why are you going into canon? The question doesn't touch canon, it's about your own particular house rule. Point 6: Movement modifiers Um.. I can argue that two ways. Why not? Walking is required to repair a car. You have to move from spot to spot, get tools, change where you're looking. If you're walking separate to repairing the car then you simply aren't allowed to repair the car. Point 7: How does line of sight relate to concentration? Point 8: SR2 is not SR3. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 21 2005, 02:37 PM
Post
#207
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
Ok. You say that the foci locks the spells effects, and that is why you can't move people with levitate through a foci. Levitates effects, as you say here, is it grants the caster the ability to move things with his mind. That is the effect. The actual moving of things with his mind is not part of the affect, its the same as reducing the power of an attack from an armor spell. You don't get a +2 when the armor spell effects are being utilized do you? No. Why should you get a +2 when the levitate effects are? The effect is the caster moves the target with his mind. That never changes, thus its a passive spell as how you said. Either the caster can or can't move it with his mind. Thats it. Thats all the foci maintains. The caster himself then can decide how the object moves, without any changes to the spells effects. That is complete seperate of the spells effects. I agree there should be a TN for moving multiple people at once, similar to a juggling skill check to juggle multiple balls. But not if its simple movement, like straight lines. Anything more complex than that, and I'd start requireing checks. Including moving people in different straight lines (meaning 2 people move left, while 2 move right). Other than that, there is no penalty for using the spell. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 22 2005, 12:48 AM
Post
#208
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
You suggest I read the book. I suggest you use some independent thought for once and quit acting so sheeeepish. The book is wrong. My guess, unintentionally. The rules are broken though, which is the whole point of being here isn't it? I don't need you to point out that the book says the focus will remove the need to concentrate on the spell. What I do need is for you to explain how it is possible to "lock" a levitate spell in the first place, which means no changes allowed after bonding. And I also need you to explain how you can levitate an object from point A to point B without giving it any thought? The spell says you have to maintain line of sight, or constant view to use it. This alone tells us that there is no way to drop concentration on the spell and effectively manipulate the effects. By your definition the caster does not even have to be conscious to levitate something. Certainly when your mind is completely empty and you are in a deep meditative trance you are not concentrating on the spell? Even though your eyes are open and the target could still be in line of sight. By your definition a sleeping mage should be able to levitate something along a complex and varied path determined by outside forces. When you are asleep an armor spell still works, so it must be the same with a levitate spell...by your definition, huh? Once again, the spell allows the caster to "telekineticlly lift". Lift being the key action verb involved. If the spell requires no concentration as you are suggesting then you would not have to use any of your attention at all, ie...by your definition a levitated object would automatically move to where the PC wants it to go. According to you the PC doesn't even need to think about where it needs to go, because thinking would require some amount of concentration and by your definition concentration is not neccessary? There is no way around this. Levitate can't satisfy the no concentration requirement so is not compatible with foci. It is plain as day. Master tells student to choose an appropriate spell to bond into a sustaining foci. Student chooses levitate. Master shakes his head in amusement and watches as student casts, sustains, then bonds a levitate to a foci, "locking" it in place. Master now tells student to place the foci on a pig. Student places foci on a pig. Master orders student to make the pig fly. Student is unable to make the pig fly. Why? The spell was "locked" to the foci. No further concentration is allowed on the spell. Without directions, it is impossible to lift an item, because the foci is not designed to tell the subject where to levitate to. This requires concentration and change, making a levitate unusable with a foci. The student tries it again with an armor spell placing the lock on himself. Master tells the student to sleep and rest. When student falls asleep the master shoots the student with a pistol. The bullets do not touch the student. Why? The bullet barrier requires no concentration to use the effects. It works fine and fits with "ALL" the rules with the foci. Much you have to learn my young Padwan.
Um...no you can't. Everything you do requires some amount of concentration. Just plotting a course and glancing down now and then to reference where your body is in relationship to where you desire to be is using concentration, otherwise you could sleep while you travel around if you need "no" concentration. Don't even mention sleep walking either. You are not controlling where you go while sleep walking. In short, you can't perform any action without some sort of concentration. And if you can't get rid of the need to concentrate a levitate can't be used with a foci.
Thank you. I can be just as polite as anyone and you don't need to know every word of a rule to know when it is broken.
Wow, I haven't even tried to be that mean, sorry. I can get down right nasty when I want to. I spent a number of years with some really vicious people. This is nothing. I am much worse in person.
This would equate to a levitate spell.
This would equate to an armor spell.
A light bulb/armor burns and puts out light requiring no attention at all. A vacuum cleaner/levitate needs to be guided around. The act of guiding it around takes concentration, which is directly at odds with the purpose of a sustaining foci. You can turn a light on, sit down an watch tv, even fall asleep on the couch. You can't turn a vacuum on, sit down and watch tv and expect it to do anything on it's own. If you want it to clean the carpet you have to get up and push it. Even if it has been "locked" in place and is self powered it will only go until it hits a wall then do as I said sit there sucking empty air. Either way you look at it the spell does not work without concentration.
You can twitch your fingers without looking at them. According to the spell constant line of sight is required. This additional requirement alone is more than moving your fingers around idlely. Having any amount of concentration is counter to sustaining foci. You can't lock a levitate effect. The spell is not compatible with a foci. Any spell you can name that requires no further guidance is fine.
That was easily dispelled as false, but let's explore the idea of it being a skill. Using a skill in itself takes concentration. If you agree the spell requires "any" concentration at all it defeats the purpose of the foci.
Which is covered on page 38. It makes no sense that you can see as much while sprinting by a full speed as you can by standing still. Ever hear the saying stop and smell the roses? A perception test in my game made while moving will get you a TN penalty. If you want to hold perfectly still and be quiet for a round I will let you roll with no penalties. The melee rules are broken and I do not wish to open that can of worms again. Notice many many posters ask for melee rules to be fixed in their top 5 suggestions for new rules. Likewise if you think are able to repair a 50 cal machine gun while at a dead run with no penalties because there is none listed I see no reason to continue in this fantasy discussion.
I do this all the time. And let my food go cold. And ignore my wife and my kids. Etc..
To a certain point, yes. But actually no, I disagree. We want the game world to make sense as much as possible. It is part of the allure of the game. At least for me it is.
We both agree this is true. But only as a compromise. I would house rule you can't sustain a levitate in a foci, because it requires further changes. Negating two principles of the foci. One, it requires no concentration, two it needs to be locked disallowing any further changes.
I have already said I would argue for a TN penalty, just like a magic fingers spell gets.
I'm not house ruling. Canon says it is +2 whether you move something or not. My point is that levitate is not a passive spell and can't be sustained by a foci, or can't be locked unless you accept that the spell effect that was locked is all the spell would od, ie rise 1 meter per turn, end, stop, no adjusting or input, it is "locked". I tried to compromise with the whole +2 TN deal. It is my reading that the spell perverts the whole concept of sustaining foci and should be disallowed.
I think having the ability to do something is different from using the ability.
Can you fix a car that is rolling down a bumpy hill if you only need two tools to remove the part that is bad? One for each hand? Without distraction penalties? If you can do that trick I know where you can get hired for big bucks.
Yes it is. The spell allows the caster to "lift" which is a verb, meaning the caster is taking an action using the spell. This is moving an object and is the exact effect of the spell.
Moving is a verb. That means you are doing something. If you are doing something that requires you never to take your eyes off the object you are moving then it is a distraction to do simultaneously with something else that requires concentration.
Having the ability to do something is not the same as actually doing it. The TN penalty would come as a result of the distraction.
Not true, not if the spell was locked. As in levitate up at 6 meters per turn. Not to mention that this is taking concentration to make decisions.
If all you are doing is moving one object and that is it, I see no reason to apply a TN to move it around to the full ability of the spell. My point is if you try and do something else or add a second object to levitate as well. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mar 22 2005, 01:52 AM
Post
#209
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 942 Joined: 13-May 04 Member No.: 6,323 |
And therein lies your problem. You're not using the book. You're just using house rules that you think make sense. You're not using Shadowrun, you're playing Rory's almost Shadowrun-like thing. You know what? That's fine, but don't argue about it here unless you post ahead of time "this is my houserule." As for "And I also need you to explain how you can levitate an object from point A to point B without giving it any thought? " I never said anything about no thought being needed. There's simply no concentration needed. Can you walk without thinking? No. Can you walk without concentrating? I, for one, can. I just think about where I want to go, and my Cerebellum handles the rest... I don't have to actively concentrate on where I'm going except when I need to make alterations (like stop for a light, change my direction, etc). Perhaps you cannot do this. If so, you might want to see a doctor... your Cerebellum seems woefully underdevolped. But the rest of us can walk and chew bubble gum all at the same time, and it doesn't take us any amount of concentration, just the occasional thought (like "I should stop chewing now, this gum is getting old"). JaronK |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 22 2005, 02:08 AM
Post
#210
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 556 Joined: 28-May 04 From: Moorhead, MN, USA Member No.: 6,367 |
Correct. The telekinetic abilities of the caster of the spell do not change. He/she can move things with a mere thought. When you lock this spell, those telekinetic abilities are locked in place. You CAN functionally use a sustaining focus with levitate because the spell and the power it gives do not change.
The same way I can walk and chew bubblegum. No significant thought. Nothing taxing. A +2 is severe: like being 30% dead. Think of the penalty for using levitate as a +¼ rounded down to 0.
I think this is your only misunderstanding. This one little misunderstanding is what is creating this whole messy topic. The spell does not move the pig. The spell gives the caster the ability to move the pig. It's in the spell description. It doesn't say the spell moves an object, it says it allows the caster to move the object without touching it. With a mere thought. That's what telekinetic ability is.
I find it easier to talk with someone while walking, especially down a path. It has been proven in studies (if you really want, I can try to hunt down links) that some people can remember names and such better while moving their hands. For some reason, moving their hands triggers their memory. With this I am just trying to explain how telekinetic powers (given by a spell that doesn't move the object by itself) could be trivial to use. Some things are just that easy to do. Once again, think of it as +1/4 rounded down, not like +2 which is the same penalty for 30% dead! Would you penalize someone for holding a phone? Give them +2 just to talk to the person on the other end? I'm not talking about +2 to other tasks, I mean +2 just for holding the phone. How about another +2 for breathing while talking. Some people doodle. Sometimes you have to jot down notes. Another +2. Lets see, thats +6 to the language test. Even an EXPERT will get only one success in a BASIC CONVERSATION on average. No! You don't have to add +2 or even +1 for every trivial thing you do. The spell's description makes it easy to direct something with a thought when you've been given this power. If you wanted to be a bastard GM™ you could give penalties up the wazoo, but that is the GM's call. I will quit discussing the total +4 to use levitate (without a sustaining focus).
Are you saying that when a magician is using a sustaining focus, he or she can't focus on ANYTHING?! A magician wouldn't have to concentrate on the spell to use levitate if he or she had a sustaining focus. He or she may have to use a quick thought to use the powers given by the spell, but those powers nor the spell change at all. The spell doesn't move the item. The caster moves the item with his or her telekinetic power.
One doesn't need to guide the levitate spell at all once it is cast. The telekinetic powers it gives to the caster do not change. They are locked! I name Levitate as needing no further guidance!
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Mar 22 2005, 02:07 AM
Post
#211
|
|||||||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
*sigh* The big problem with almost all of what you're arguing here Rory is most of it is just you repeating several of your claims over and over. Repetition does not make a weak argument stronger, except in the minds of those not paying much attention. Most of your claims remain with no real backing other than making other claims, either that the canon rules are broken and should be thrown out in favor of your house rules, or that canon is too vague to really rule one way or the other, switching between the two whenever your opponent attacks the other claim as irrelevant. The problem is that *neither* claim is valid, as the purpose of this thread isn't to discuss your house rules or *any* house rules, but rather the ones that already exist in canon. If you want to discuss your house rules in another thread that's fine, but don't try to pretend that they have any canon backing whatsoever.
You seem to have missed the crux of my argument. The whole point was that there is a necessary distinction--a clear difference--even in the analogy you gave, between sustaining the spell, which is likened to the power source that the vacum cleaner or light bulb is drawing from, and manipulating or "controlling" the spell's effects, which is likened to actually pushing the vacum cleaner around. Now, here's the important part: no matter whether the power is coming directly from the house (mage sustaining the spell) or from a seperate generator (sustaining focus powering the spell), you can still manipulate the vacum cleaner in effectively the same ways to do effectively the same things. This is what I meant by a "clear and necessary distinction," which I presume you glossed over because of vocabulary differences or not really paying attention to my argument. Thus, by your own analogy you have shown that it is conceptually simple to seperate the powering of a spell from the manipulation of its effects.
Okay, fine. However, there is an additional requirement for twitching your finger that it must remain attached to your body, which is a requirement that the Levitate spell does not have. Therefore twitching your finger must require more concentration than manipulating a Levitate spell. My argument here is clearly absurd, but it follows the exact same line of reasoning as yours does, which makes both arguments absurd. I cut the rest of the paragraph from the quote because the claims you offer up as conclusions do not in any way follow from your argument.
Okay, so we have 1) an irrelevant house rule, 2) another claim that the canon rules are broken, and 3) an irrelevant point which I didn't make anywhere in my argument. 3) is false as well: take a look on pg. 95 at the Build/Repair table. I don't know about you, but I'd definately call doing B/R at a dead run "Terrible Conditions" which would immediately give a +4 TN mod. Hell, I might be tempted to extrapolate from the table and call it "Piece of Shit Conditions" and make it a +6 TN mod, but that would be a house rule and not really part of this discussion.
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Mar 22 2005, 02:21 AM
Post
#212
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 556 Joined: 28-May 04 From: Moorhead, MN, USA Member No.: 6,367 |
Gee this is fun. Who's going to pick up the torch next? :dead:
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 22 2005, 02:43 AM
Post
#213
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
Not me. I am bored to tears with this topic. I think I have made myself understood by those open minded enough to understand what I am saying makes perfect sense. The whole point of the thread is; can any spell be sustained by a focus? The answer is no. Only passive spells can. If it isn't clear in the rules enough for that to be accepted then it needs to be made so. Since I don't have a clue how to go about getting that change, it is pointless for me to go over the same good points over and over. I GM games that make sense, there will be no munchkins allowed. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 22 2005, 02:50 AM
Post
#214
|
|||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
The flaw with this arguement is that levitate is a passive spell. Armor we agree is passive. It is either providing you magical armor, or not. Levitate is either providing you with the ability to move something with your mind, or not. Actually using the armor (by being shot and reducing the damage) or using the levitation (making stuff float around) is also analogous. Neither forces a penalty. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 22 2005, 03:54 AM
Post
#215
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
Well, there are players like tisoz and BitBasher that I have high respect for. Both have been around a long time and they both agree with my interpretation, or I agree with theirs since they actually posted first, even though I admit I did not read their posts until long after I had posted. Obviously, they do not allow players to abuse canon with rules lawyering.
Any layman off the street can see that levitate is not a passive spell and that "lock" means you do not get to change ANY aspect of the spell once it is bonded to a foci. Like tisoz suggested and I explained further. Canon does not support anywhere the munchkin's interpretation that you remain in control of a spell once it is locked and sustained by a foci. It simply does not state that anywhere. In fact it greatly perverts the entire purpose of that foci and over powers the item beyond what the designers likely had in mind. My biggest mistake was confusing the issue with a compramise. I suggested keeping the +2 TN for using a spell like levitate in a focus if you allow levitate at all. This is more than fair considering the suspension of belief you want me to accept in the first place to allow levitate in a spell lock. Anyone saying they can chew bubble gum and walk has no knowledge of mind/body mechanics and consciousness. To lift an object with your mind will take much more effort than that. Keeping it view at all times means you can't even walk without chancing a fall. The focus does nothing to assist you other than powering the spell. And any other interpretation is weak. If it wasn't for the monotany of blasting one ill thought out straw man after another I would continue. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 22 2005, 03:49 AM
Post
#216
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
Good job avoiding my post Rory, which completely destroys yours.
Levitate is a passive spell. It grants you an ability. The same as improve strength grants you one. Higher strength/moving an object with your mind. Strictly speaking, at best, you could say the target could never change, which is correct, nor could the caster ever change. Great. Now, the spells affects are the caster can move the target with the caster's mind. Those don't change either. Address that. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 22 2005, 01:48 PM
Post
#217
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086 |
You really don't understand anything you're talking about, do you? 'Locking' a door stops it from opening. You can still open and close the windows. Locking a window, you can still look out the window, change curtains, whatever. Locking is not 'prevent 100% of all change'. It just prevents the change the lock is designed against. And this is making the false assumption that something needs to be changed. As for bubblegum and walking.. No, levitate does not take more effort than that. You think it does. That's different. You're welcome to impose your worldview on your players. I'm quite glad that I am not and never will be one of them. Are you going to accuse everyone else of 'argumentum ad ignoramus' 'argumentum ad nazium' as well now? Those were yours too, we just ignored them. Look'em up if you don't believe me. I know Sharaloth gave a link for ad nazium earlier. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 22 2005, 01:48 PM
Post
#218
|
|||
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
That's funny. I copied and pasted that into my Translate-o-Thon, and got: "I like these two guys, because they agree with me and make me feel like I'm not alone on this thread. I'm ignoring the rules and calling people that don't ignore them 'rules lawyers,' while implying no one that disagrees with me is a good GM I'm cool." |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 22 2005, 02:10 PM
Post
#219
|
|||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 942 Joined: 13-May 04 Member No.: 6,323 |
First of all, unless you've been casting spells recently, you're a layman, as are the rest of us. I however see levitate as being just as passive as other spells. It grants the caster the ability to move things with a thought... just like Improve Strength grants the target the ability to move heavier things with their muscles. And as for what "lock" means, you seem to be stuck in SR2. There's no spell locks anymore, so your little lock arguement makes no sense whatsoever. No spells are "locked" in SR3. They are instead "sustained." By the book, that means they no longer require concentration... just like the walking and chewing bubble gum thing. If you'd never walked before (or needed to learn to walk again due to some serious accident), walking takes a serious amount of concentration. It's hard. There's a lot of muscles to move. You can think of that as a magician trying to sustain the spell himself. However, if you've done it a long time, your cerebellum takes over... your concious mind no longer needs to maintain the activity of walking, and instead only guides where to walk. In this case, your cerebellum is like a sustaining focus, handling all the necessary concentration. Tell me... can you control where you walk when your cerebellum handles the details? I know I can.
That's not a compromise. That's a direct contradiction of what Shadowrun tells you happens. That's "Rory's funky ideas on what Shadowrun should be like, despite the fact that his ideas run exactly counter to what the books say about the subject." That's "Rory's house rule that makes a sustaining focus completely useless with levitate for no apparent reason."
Wow Rory, really? Is that what happened last time you lifted something with your mind? Tell me, what exactly are your credencials on the subject? Have you asked a telekinetic person lately? Certainly, in any fantasy book I've read, telekenetic folks seem to be able to toss things around relatively easily, as simply as walking. In a few stories, it takes a lot of work and they sweat a lot. From what shadowrun tells us, it's easy in shadowrun. So cite your source for this claim or shut up about it... as far as I can tell you have no evidence for this claim and unless you can move things with your mind and have first hand evidence, you have no back up for this claim.
Wait... you can't walk and keep something in view without falling? This does explain a lot here. You might want to see a doctor about that. Me, I can walk while reading a newspaper. I can also walk and talk to someone else, looking at them much of the time. If they're in front of me, I gaurentee you I can walk safely while looking at a pretty girl and keeping her in view for quite some time, and I haven't slammed into any posts yet. Don't assume that just because you're not capable of doing much while walking, the rest of us aren't either. And remember, mages (at least the shadowrunning PC kinds) tend to have an intelligence around 6... they're pretty bright. They can manage walking and reading, most likely.
Funny, my interpretation is that it sustains the spell, removing all need for concentration. You may call it weak... but I call it "what the fraggin' book says." Your interpretation that it only powers the spell is rather weak, seeing as there's no evidence for it.
And where exactly in your post did you address a strawman? Did you even read the links about what that word means? You're like a small child who's just heard a bad word and wants to use it for anything they don't like. Read the links, learn what a strawman is, then try using that word. We all used it on you because your 6 man ariel ballet without penalties has nothing to do with sustaining foci, and only has to do with what TN a GM should set to choreograph a 6 man ariel ballet, making it completely off topic. You then attacked that strawman, and claimed to have made an arguement against sustaining foci with levitate, which is the essence of a strawman arguement. JaronK |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Mar 23 2005, 03:57 AM
Post
#220
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 19-March 05 Member No.: 7,190 |
I am sorry to come into this conversation late in the game.
The point that people keep making is that rory is not following "cannon law" and rants off the top of his head without quoting the real actual rules. I have played Shadowrun II for a looooooonnnnngggg time and in shadowrun II when you make a spell lock it locks the spell down. That means no changes. I can post the exact "cannon law" for SRII but not SR3. I know the makers haven't completely lost their mind though. If anyone can post where you are allowed to change spells after locking them please post here. If not Levitate can not be changed once locked no change of direction or amount. People have posted comparing the spell to appliances etc. good analogy bad analogy who cares the spell is not a vacuum cleaner. If you want to argue a point and beat someone up for not using "cannon law" when making arguments leave your appliances home. Basically the whole question revolves around one issue can anyone quote from the SR3 where you are allowed to change a spell once LOCKED. Sporg |
|
|
|
|
Mar 23 2005, 04:07 AM
Post
#221
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
Sporg, once again. The ability that is locked when levitate is put into a focus is the casters ability to move the target with his mind. That is what the spell does. Any actual movement the target does, is because the caster is using his mind (and thus the effect of the spell) to do so, not the spell itself. The spells only affect is to permit the caster to move the target with the caster's mind.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 23 2005, 04:10 AM
Post
#222
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 351 Joined: 17-February 05 Member No.: 7,093 |
You might want to read pages one and two of this thread. That's where most of the actual discussion and information will be found. Including quotes to the effect that Levitate grants specific abilities to the caster (specifically, the ability to telekinetically move the object the spell is cast upon), and the sustaining focus makes it so that you don't have to concentrate on sustaining that ability (That is, you can still use the ability granted by the spell, but no longer have to concentrate on giving yourself said ability).
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 23 2005, 04:23 AM
Post
#223
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 19-March 05 Member No.: 7,190 |
So I could also in effect cast 10000 levitate spells on 10000 marionette's lock each one and have them reinact a huge battle without any penalty because the lock is sustaining the spell.
I agree the lock could sustain a spell but where does it say the lock allows you to change the spell once locked? In my view once locked unless recast you couldn't change the spell. To take your reasoning one step further since you said: The ability that is locked when levitate is put into a focus is the casters ability to move the target with his mind. why not interpret it that the ability that is locked is the ability to levitate. Why are you setting limits on that it has to be the same object. If you can change speed and direction why not target also. If you have SR3 could you quote where you are allowed to change a spell once locked? Sporg |
|
|
|
|
Mar 23 2005, 04:30 AM
Post
#224
|
|||||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
There ya go. :) Oh, and let's not get into the marionettes thing. If you bothered to read any of the first four or so pages that type of argument has been beaten to death, dragged from its grave, beaten to death *again*, and repeated so many times that noone cares anymore about it. Seriously, read the first three or four pages of the thread. If you want a summation it's this: spell-sustaining TN modifiers have little to nothing to do with the complexity of the action attempted; that is solely the province of the base TN for the action itself, which in this case is set by the GM as midair choreography is not covered anywhere by the books. Further, a sustaining focus takes over sustaining the spell for you, so you don't get any TN modifiers from sustaining the spell. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 23 2005, 04:33 AM
Post
#225
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
The consesus with the reinacting a battle, is you have to be able to have that many spells on that many things, then make a performance check.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd January 2025 - 05:17 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.