 sustain focus, can it sustain any spell?, need some book ninja fu |
  |
 Mar 23 2005, 04:44 AM
Post
#226
|
|||
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 351 Joined: 17-February 05 Member No.: 7,093  |
Hold it a second... haven't we already seen this guy? Wasn't he looking for a brain, or something? I'm sad to see he didn't make it to the Wizard. (Not you, Sporg, your example). Rory's said as much and more before (although with the more sane number 12, and the even more sane number 6). Short answer: Yes. if you had a 10,000 Intelligence rating and a minimum 5000 Magic Rating, you could pull this off. You'd have to have some sort of vantage point where you could see them all, and I would suppose some sort of 'epic marionette warfare' knowledge skill, you could, indeed perform such an action. Of course, with a 10k Intelligence rating, you're already a god among .... well, brain dead ants, I suppose. At that level such trivial matters as skills and learned knowledge are petty things for much lesser individuals. Please re-read statements made by most people in this thread, I beleive you'll find a bunch of quotes to the effect of what we just tried to tell you. Also, part of the long dead debate is in that nothing says you CAN'T change a spell once sustained (not 'locked', that's SR2, we're dealing in SR3), and the description of the spell provides the necessary information to show that the abilites granted wouldn't go away when the focus takes over sustaining. If you want to houserule it impossible, that's your business, but not canon. You can't change target BTW, because the spell is cast on a single object and allows the caster to move that specific object telekinetically. You can change speed and direction of that object because that's what the spell lets you do, you cannot change the object, because that would require casting a new spell. |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Mar 23 2005, 04:46 AM
Post
#227
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086 |
Locked does not exist in shadowrun 3. The spell is not being changed. The spell is just being used as appropriate. Reread the earlier posts in the thread. All this has been explained, re-explained, explained again, and the misconceptions beaten with a steel plated core book. Yes, we should have dikoted it too, it might have sunk a little better, but we didn't think it was worth the nuyen. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 23 2005, 05:30 AM
Post
#228
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,144 Joined: 22-September 04 Member No.: 6,690 |
Holy Jesus! Look at the size of that strawman! Ah well, the bigger they are, the easier they are to knock down.
Can you tell me where, in either SR2 or SR3, it says that using a lock or sustaining focus prevents you from using the spell as it's described? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 23 2005, 05:29 AM
Post
#229
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 19-March 05 Member No.: 7,190 |
I stand corrected. Spell locks have changed 100%. I just read the rules on the new system sustained foci and yes you could do this. Basically in SR2 there was no way possible to do this. I am getting the books to read this weekend and will refrain from the forums until I finish them. Thanks guys sorry for the post.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 23 2005, 06:06 AM
Post
#230
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 942 Joined: 13-May 04 Member No.: 6,323 |
S'okay, though you were basically using an extended version of Rory's original Strawman arguement.
Though to use your 1000 levitates, you'd need at least 1000 force 1 sustaining foci simultaneously, which means you need a magic rating of 500 to avoid magic loss and an intelligence of 1000 to use them all. At that point, you are god, so 1000 marionettes is pretty darn trivial. But, as we stated before, the problem with levitating a bunch of people (6 is reasonable, and possible for starting characters) isn't the sustaining foci, nor is there any TN relating to that... there's just the TN for how hard it is to do a complex manipulation on 6 people in an artistic manner, which probably would result in a Performance(Dance) or Knowledge: Choreography check of appropriate difficulty. And as said earlier, spell locks are from SR2, and no longer exist. In SR3, you have sustaining foci, which only remove the need for concentration and the TN+2 penalty, and do nothing else. They do not lock the spell in any way. They have no ability to think either, so if a spell says "the sustainer of this spell can do X" nothing happens. Luckily, levitate says "the caster of the spell can do X" not the sustainer. Levitate doesn't actually move things around... it just gives the caster the ability to move things around. JaronK |
|
|
|
|
Mar 23 2005, 09:52 AM
Post
#231
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,133 Joined: 3-October 04 Member No.: 6,722 |
Funnily enough, in SR2 I think Spell Locks may have made a clearer explanation of all this than SR3 sustaining foci. I'm referencing p. 138 for this:
However, in both SR2 and SR3 the key thing, I feel, is not what is said, but what is not. Both spell locks and sustaining foci say that they sustain the spell (spell locks, to me, infer a little more that "sustain" does indeed equate to "power"). Neither of them explicitly state that using a lock/focus prevents you from utilising that spell in the normal fashion. This has already been said, but for the record: Levitate, like Increase Reflexes, bestows an ability upon the target. In the case of IR, it's the ability to react to a situation more rapidly. In the case of Levitate, it's the ability to move something with your mind. As long as the spell exists, the bestowed ability is available to the target. The spell lock or focus keeps the spell in existence without the need for the casting magician to do so - it acts as a conduit for the magical energies from Astral Space which power spells (this was again a little clearer in SR2 where that conduit could be used offensively to ground spells from Astral Space to Meat Space). Following from that statement, here's another thing to consider: Both spell locks and sustaining foci maintain an astral link to the casting magician at all times. If the lock/focus is doing ALL the work for a spell - powering it AND "controlling" it - what's the astral link? It's not the astral fingerprint of the casting mage, that's covered under Astral Signatures. Could it conceivably be the link by which the magician manipulates the spell effect? I think that it is. YMMV. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 23 2005, 10:02 PM
Post
#232
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 556 Joined: 28-May 04 From: Moorhead, MN, USA Member No.: 6,367 |
No, though I side with the useful levitation sustaining focus side, the link from the focus to the caster allows the caster to shut off the focus, not control the spell effects.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 23 2005, 10:12 PM
Post
#233
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 126 Joined: 27-December 04 Member No.: 6,908 |
Question:
If the caster of a spell onto a sustaining focus can change the spells effects, would it requier a action? GM call. I think that part of the +2TN for sustaiing spells includes the effort in changing it's effects. Sense the Focus sustains it the caster would need to use a free/simple/complex action or somthing like that to change the spells efect. Depending on how complex teh chaneg is. Ex. Levitate Changing speed Free Direction Free Speed & direction Simple Speed, Direction and spinnn complex (asuming you can spin an object w/ the levitate spell) This would be a good compramize. Physical mask 1 color free contrast free Clothing simple completly difrent complex |
|
|
|
|
Mar 23 2005, 11:03 PM
Post
#234
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 351 Joined: 17-February 05 Member No.: 7,093 |
You could houserule something like that, but it would be inconsistant with the rest of the spell and the spell description. By your example even sustaining the spell yourself you'd have to use action to change speed and direction, etc. The +2 is for maintaining the spell, not using it's effects, so when in a sustaining focus you can still use the effects as indicated in the spell description, but do not suffer the +2.
Another thing is this: An Armor spell has a +2 for sustaining it as well, but you don't have to change effects at all with that one. Why is sustaining an Armor spell more difficult than sustaining a Levitate spell (which it would have to be if part of the +2 on Levitate came from manipulating the spell's effects)? The answer is it isn't, since both have the same target modifier to them. Casting a Physical mask is a complex action already, changing the appearance (and other traits) at casting, requiring no other actions to it. Short answer: No, it would not require an action, unless you were trying to do something rediculously complex and the GM ruled you need a skill test and an action to get it done (and even then it's GMO). |
|
|
|
|
Mar 23 2005, 11:08 PM
Post
#235
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,133 Joined: 3-October 04 Member No.: 6,722 |
As I said, YMMV. But I don't think there's a canon answer to that one anyway. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 24 2005, 12:08 AM
Post
#236
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 556 Joined: 28-May 04 From: Moorhead, MN, USA Member No.: 6,367 |
I get a canon answer from the description of sustaining foci SR3 pp. 190-191. It mentions that the focus' owner can deactivate the focus at any time. It doesn't mention controlling the spell. When you ask, "If the lock/focus is doing ALL the work for a spell - powering it AND 'controlling' it - what's the astral link?" you infer that the link is for controlling the spell. That inference is false. The ability to deactivate the focus at any time adequately explains the existence of the astral link. If you want to argue that the astral link ALSO allows the caster some control over the spell, I won't argue against that. I was disagreeing with your evidence, not your conclusion. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Mar 24 2005, 11:29 AM
Post
#237
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
Except that it is stated in sustaining foci description that the spell is "locked".
Using appropriate to what? Changing conditions...change being the key word. Quite a munchkin's interpretation to allow all that change to the spell.
Can you show us where it states implictly the munchkin version? It isn't described as allowing control over the spell. Unless you have a direct quote that it does. Remember someone pointed out that if canon does not state a thing is allowed, then it is not allowed. That's what I was told.
This doesn't say anything different from what it says in SR3, it just lends support to what I have been saying all along. The spell gets no more involvement from the caster, "involvement" is changing effects to meet changing circumstance. This is the very description of "locked".
Only if you agree that sustaining a spell is seperate from changing the effects where effects are allowed to be changed to meet varied conditions. Nowhere in canon makes this distinction. It is either sustaining or not. There is no powering and manipulating effects sub division, by canon. It is my interpretation that either could account for the +2 TN for sustaining a spell and that the designers did not have time to go thru and place a differing TN to each and every spell, though more accurate, it is just as easy to say it is a generic +2 to manipulating the effects of all spells.
Just because you have an ability to do something it doesn't mean using the ability wouldn't give a TN penalty for doing other things. It is a seperate issue, but if the spell levitate was allowed to be used in direct violation of the locked aspect of the foci. A +2 TN makes sense. Contrary to the genius level posters who can chew bubble gum and be annoying to their mommy and daddy at the same time it is impossible to divide the part of your conscious brain into that many different tasks without some penalty. As I pointed out before, you can control 1 focus per point of intelligence. If you had a 12 intelligence you could cast 12 Force 1 levitates. This does not mean that you can violate the locked part of the spell and move all 12 subjects at one time with no penalty. Just think of this simple analogy; say you can control the computer mouse with your mind, you can navigate thru a maze that takes a full round to complete just fine, but can you navigate thru 12 mazes simultaneously with 12 different mouse pointers? No, of course not, nobody has answered this. Instead they point out they can chew bubble gum and fart without thinking...wow, impressive.
That is a possibility. Or it is a possibility that locked means no changing effects. Locked in place is locked in place. I say the rules are vague others scolded me and said no they are clear.
For spells that require no further changes I agree wth you. For spells like levitate, absolutely not.
No, the developers maybe didn't want to go thru every spell and put realistic TNs on each one. The +2 is generic. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Mar 24 2005, 12:28 PM
Post
#238
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 401 Joined: 7-June 02 From: Living with the straw sheep. Member No.: 2,850 |
The key word here is interpretation. There is insufficient evidence in the text as written to make a definitive judgement. You think your interpretation is correct, you disagree with the other interpretation. That does not make the other interpretation 'munchkin'. Calling the other interpretation 'munchkin' does nothing to assist your argument.
I don't believe the SR3 rules do either of these things. The SR rules don't ever state that you have control over a levitate spell. They state that the levitate spell lets you move things telekinetically, granting you an ability you would not otherwise have. Sustaining the spell merely ensures that you retain that ability. I see no reason for sustaining the spell using a focus to remove from you the ability to control the new faculty that the spell provides: you are not controlling the spell, just what the spell lets you do. This is an important distinction, and one you seem to continually ignore.
As you concede: this is a separate issue from sustaining the spell. However, using the ability granted by the spell (regardless of how it is sustained) does not necessarily constitute changing the parameters of the spell itself.
Would you not agree that it's easy enough to pay attention to several different tasks without being distracted too much, depending on how difficult the tasks are?. I can carry out a conversation and drive on the motorway at the same time. Task difficulty in Shadowrun is established by the GM.
The rules will always be unclear and require interpretation. You have said that they are unclear, and provided your interpretation. Several people, me included, disagree with you. You have also said what you think the rules should say, and then used that in several cases to justify your interpretation. That's fine, but only in your game. If you want to have a discussion about the rules of the game with other people, you need a common ground as a basis for discussion. We can talk about poker all we want, until rules of the house come in, neh? Same point.
And which developer did you ask to establish this piece of information? It might be true. But it might equally be true that sustaining a spell imposes a +2 penalty for sustaining any spell because the act of sustaining a spell is identical for all spells. Your answer is an interpretation. It could be valid. If you want to find out, email Rob or the FAQ and ask. Me, I'm happy to apply Occam's razor, and just go for the simpler explanation: the second one. |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Mar 24 2005, 01:58 PM
Post
#239
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
Again, Rory, try responding to my post, which you have ignored twice now. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 24 2005, 02:00 PM
Post
#240
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 693 Joined: 26-March 03 Member No.: 4,335 |
I've always handles sustaining foci like tisoz and Bitbasher do. It make sense to me that If you ain't sustaining it, you ain't controlling it.
I don't see how you can expect to maintain detailed control over a spell without using any actions and without any TN modifiers due to divided attention. Mages are powerful, but they do have their limitations. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 24 2005, 02:02 PM
Post
#241
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 401 Joined: 7-June 02 From: Living with the straw sheep. Member No.: 2,850 |
And spending 2x karma and :nuyen: 15000(x) on a locked spell (x = Force) isn't limitation enough?
As with everything, I guess mileage varies. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 24 2005, 02:13 PM
Post
#242
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086 |
Locked isn't petrified. Your interpretation rests on the believe that the spell is completely petrified the instant it's put into a sustaining focus. We've already discussed this Rory: none of the other spells are. You can move in an armour spell, which is a force field over the skin. You can pick up an egg while under a force 10 increase strength spell, without breaking it. You can walk at normal speeds under an increased quickness spell. If the spell was petrified, then you'd be stationary in the armour spell -- it's a force field, and moving it is changing it (under your interpretation of changing spells). An increased strength spell would mean that you have a minimum strength on any action of 1 + (bonus), we'll say 5 for the purposes of the argument, so minimum strength on the most delicate task of 6.. egg breaks. You'd have to walk at 1 + (bonus) per phase under the quickness spell.
Unless you can justify why those work in sustaining foci, when the spell affects are completely unable to be changed, then you you should go back to the drawing board. The passive spell argument doesn't work. It's not an acceptable reason -- there have been enough arguments given as to why there is no distinction. Note: This argument is not a straw man. It's a deliberate argument against your concept of how sustaining foci work, utilizing 3 examples which are quite relevent. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 24 2005, 02:21 PM
Post
#243
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
You don't control the levitate spell once its cast though. It gives the caster the ability to move things with his mind. Much the same as an armor spell gives the caster magical armor. It gives the caster something. Thats what the spell does. The caster actually moving something is utilizing what the spell gives him, just the same as being shot utilizes what the armor gives him. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 24 2005, 02:50 PM
Post
#244
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 942 Joined: 13-May 04 Member No.: 6,323 |
Other spells similar to levitate:
Improved Strength: Allows the target to move things he otherwise couldn't using his muscles. If in a sustaining focus, can he not move at all? After all, his muscles are now "locked." Clairvoyance: Allows the caster to see other locations. If in a sustaining focus, can the caster only see from one angle in one location? Armour: Creates a glowing forcefield around the caster. If in a sustaining focus, the armour is locked, so the caster can't move? Night Vision: Allows the caster to see as though he had low light vision. If in a sustaining focus, can the caster not move his eyes? Improved Reflexes: Allows the target to respond quickly to various threats. If in a sustaining focus, does the caster have to concentrate each time the target wants to move quickly? In all these cases, the answer is no. The spell grants an ability to the target or caster. Who gets the ability is clearly defined by the spell itself (which is also true for levitate, it's the caster). In no case is the "sustainer" of the spell given any degree of control over the spell. In all cases, claiming that would make the spell impossible to use in a sustaining focus... in fact, I can't think of a single sustained spell that could work in a sustaining focus under that interpretation. Look, canon is crystal clear. A sustaining focus sustains a spell. The spells do what they say, and are controlled by who they say. Sustaining foci do not change this, because they don't say they do. This is all written out in the book. JaronK |
|
|
|
|
Mar 25 2005, 03:14 AM
Post
#245
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
Because you ignore the fact it is "locked", locked means no further input allowed. No going faster, no going higher, no changing direction. Locked, you seem to continually ignore this sticky little part in your interpretation of the rules. Unless you have canon saying you can change parameters of sustained spells in spell locks then you can't and levitate does not work in a spell lock. Being lenient is allowing it to work, but requiring the mage to suffer the +2 TN for manipulating the spell, which I have argued with sound logic is what sustaining actually is since there is no distinction given for powering and using a spell at all.
If for some reason you feel I concede this part, I wish to go on the record to say I do not see a difference. Perhaps you are confusing two seperate stances I have on the subject. One being levitate does not work in a spell lock. And two, if it doe it gets the +2 TN for sustaining the spell, because nothing has changed by placing it in a lock except the need to resist drain each future use of it's abilities.
Not if one of the tasks is levitating an object that you can't break eye contact with, absolutely not. You are setting up a straw man argunent by taking this off topic to discuss the supposed ease of doing a phsical task requiring very little concentration, one that I should add that was programmed into our species with millions of years of evolution to make it easy. Magic has been around, what? Couple of generations at best? Try answering my example of having your screen divided into 6 mazes. You can move the mouse with your mind, each maze takes 3 seconds to complete, would the spell sustained in a foci allow you to give little or no thought to completing the maze? I think the honest answer is no, it makes no sense, and is quite ridiculous if you think it thru, just like it is ridiculous to assume there is no TN penalty to levitaing should a GM be lenient enough to allow you to sustain it in a foci.
Sure, you and I agree, then guys like JaronK will post a few hours later that the rules are quite clear. Common sense tells you the rules are not clear or we would not be here beating a tired horse.
Given enough time I might be able to find the quote actually. Not every nit picky little thing is possible to put in canon. This is a good reason to use common sense and good judgment when dealing with any rules system. They are there as a tool to have fun, nothing else. There is no reason to treat it like the Holy Bible. And on the errata page they even admit to making mistakes.
I doubt he would have the time to look into it for one. But the simpler interpretation to me is not to allow anything but passive spells in a spell lock, ones that require zero thought to sustain AND manipulate, if there is even a difference.
Of course, which is why I call it the munchkin interpretation to allow them to levitate around like some DnD monster, at will.
That is peanuts. A starting character can have 6 or more of them easy. And a more innovative minded munchkin can come up with something much more abusive than just doing Swan Lake in air while studying calculus. It is not a straw man to point out possible abuses to a questionable interpretation of the rules. It is nothing more than showing that one interpretationa allows the outrageous abuses and the other does not. Call it a straw man if you want, but at the heart it is solid steel logic.
Locked doesn't mean loose, as in sort of locked, but able to move around and be flexible to meet changing needs. Your interpretation allows you to have snow tires on in the winter, slicks for racing, and radials for a long drive, without ever loosening a lug nut. That's nuts. It's eithe rlocked or it isn't. Show me a quote that says you can change around a locked spell, or agree that I could be right. At least I have admitted your side could be right. It needs to be cleared up.
I've been all over it. Those spells once locked do not require any attention to sustain. They actually can be locked with no further concentration required. They will literally work when the mage is asleep. Unlike levitate and mind control spells.
And I either destroyed each one as it was posted, or you are reading too much into what has been posted.
And that requires a) you must keep your eye on the object the entire time, which is very distracting. b) you have to change a locked spell constantly to use it. and c) nowhere in canon has it said you can change a spell around once it is locked.
You don't lock the target. You lock the spell effects as long as the spell requires no further changing. If you want to house rule no spells work in a foci I am all for it.
Tarantula, don't flatter yourself. This question is so easy to splatter all over the thread it is not worth answering. Levitate is not a passive spell. Try levitating without thinking...at all. Unless you are prepared to say the foci levitates you intuitvely then levitate is not a passive spell. My 8 year old understands this. You have to at least have the milli second brain fart you think it requires to move the target to form the idea in the first place right? Meanwhile I am asleep with my word barrier up safe from ill thought out straw arguments. Splat.... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mar 25 2005, 03:43 AM
Post
#246
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 515 Joined: 19-January 04 Member No.: 5,992 |
It wasn't worth answering, but it was worth writing nine sentences about how it's not worth answering?
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 25 2005, 03:44 AM
Post
#247
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 556 Joined: 28-May 04 From: Moorhead, MN, USA Member No.: 6,367 |
Yup. Spring's coming. Soon well get to watch baseball. Yup.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 25 2005, 03:55 AM
Post
#248
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 515 Joined: 19-January 04 Member No.: 5,992 |
Out of curiousity, couldn't you, you know, use a levitation focus to levitate yourself? Or would putting it into the focus of doom accelerate you at a constant rate of (F x M) Meters per turn until you paste yourself against the nearest surface with a high enough barrier rating to stop you?
This has gone on for 11 days, now. Y'all are at each other's throats about the possible implications of letting people LEVITATE. Couldn't this have just been solved by a simple 'In my game' or 'Not in my game' answer? It's insane. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 25 2005, 04:05 AM
Post
#249
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Agreed, particularly since the argument was over a week ago, and the rest has been trying to teach Rory how and why none of his arguments have made any logical sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 25 2005, 04:06 AM
Post
#250
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,144 Joined: 22-September 04 Member No.: 6,690 |
Since this is the only part of your arguement worth responding to:
D&D's Levitate only lets you move up and down in a straight line. Try another analogy. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd January 2025 - 05:21 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.