 sustain focus, can it sustain any spell?, need some book ninja fu |
  |
 Mar 14 2005, 01:59 AM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 351 Joined: 17-February 05 Member No.: 7,093  |
No, Tisoz, you are not proven right by your references. We are, in fact, referencing the exact same passages to prove our very seperate points. That makes it an interpretation difference, as I have stated repeatedly now. I have not ignored your canon references, as I assume (and hope) you are not ignoring mine. The simple fact of the matter is that it does not say 'when a spell is in a sustaining focus it is completely out of the caster's control', neither does it say 'when a spell is in a sustaining focus the caster can still direct it'. The rules simply do not say.
I beleive my interpretation is the superior, but there is absolutely nothing I can find in the book to say for sure. You may beleive yours is the superior, but there is absolutely nothing I can find to support that position for sure either. A sustained spell would not (technically) go away when the caster falls asleep or unconscious, so long as it is maintained by a sustaining focus (I would rule that it would vanish, but a quick search turned up no positive reference to this being the case). Would you be able to control the spell while asleep? No, no you wouldn't, that's just a silly suggestion. I have no idea where you got that "By your interpretation" wackiness, but it wasn't in any of my statements. As far as I'm concerned the 'unconscious' thing is far from what we are discussing and unnecessary to either of our interpretations. |
 |
 
|
|
Mar 14 2005, 02:31 AM
Post
#27
|
|||
|
Free Spirit Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,950 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Bloomington, IN UCAS Member No.: 1,920 |
I agree. I don't see why the mage gets control as a sort of default. The focus isn't usurping control from the mage, the mage never had it to begin. Why does the sustaining focus wipe away the TN modifier for actions while sustaining the spell? Because the mage doesn't have to think about it. If he controls it, he needs to think about it. Sharaloth, the whole wackiness factor gets thrown in because I was trying to figure out how you figure the mage is sustaining the spell in any way (or every way except ones that increase TNs.) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 14 2005, 02:38 AM
Post
#28
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 351 Joined: 17-February 05 Member No.: 7,093 |
And that just makes me think you're completely misreading my posts. The mage is not sustaining the spell, the focus is, the mage is directing the spell. I'm fairly certain I made this clear.
Why does the sustaining focus wipe away TN modifiers for actions while sustaining a spell? Well, because it's a sustaining focus. That's what it does, that's all that it does. You pay karma and money for the specific priveledge of having a sustaining focus do exactly this. How hard is it to think 'Levitate spell go up!', or 'Levitate spell hover!'? If it requires enough effort to make doing other things difficult, then I suggest that you are doing something wrong. The distractions implied with sustaining a spell yourself are the effort of channelling mana and keeping the spell active, which the sustaining focus then takes over. The actual comands to the spells require little to no thought at all. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2005, 02:49 AM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086 |
The mage HAS to have control of the spell. He casts it. He doesn't just suddenly have the focus grab ahold of mana and shape the spell, he actively casts the spell through the focus and takes drain from it.
My reading of that is that it, is that the focus takes away the need to consciously hold the spell. Doesn't mean he can't influence the spell, or that he's cut off all connection to it, just means that the focus keeps it going. Since there's no penalty increase for sustaining a levitate spell and moving, compared to sustaining an armour spell, I would say that controlling levitate is no harder than chewing gum or some other trivial task, so I don't see why applying any extra penalties for controlling it with a sustaining focus would make sense either. Since the focus is linked to them and part of their aura while active, it just makes sense to me that it holds the spell, and they manipulate it as they want. In fact, just realized this, there's an implicit requirement that the mage maintains control of the spell. He can turn it off at will, without dropping the focus. Hard to do if you've got no control over it ;) |
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2005, 02:56 AM
Post
#30
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 942 Joined: 13-May 04 Member No.: 6,323 |
The reason we're defaulting to the mage controlling the spell is because the rules say the mage controlls the spell. Sustaining Focii never change this... nothing in the rules say the focus controlls the spell. If it did say that, it would work as you say, doing exactly what it was cast to do (in the case of levitate, you'd just float in place).
JaronK |
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2005, 03:07 AM
Post
#31
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
You can't CONTROL a spell sustained by another mage can you? Even if you are the recipient of the spell you would still levitate where the other mage wanted you to go. The same thing applies to the focus. The focus is now sustaining the spell. Even if you are the one who cast it you do not control it any longer. It is treated as if another mage is sustaining it.
So this means you do not get a free ride to somehow CONTROL 5 or 6 illusions while levitating all around while reading a book. The levitation can be set, but it would be as I stated earlier. If you were moving upwards when you gave CONTROL of the spell to the focus you would move up with no more concentration on your part. You would NOT be able to stop the levitation direction as the CONTROL of the spell is now slaved to the focus. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2005, 03:19 AM
Post
#32
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
That isn't really a good analogy, because you didn't cast the spell that is being sustained by the other mage. You did cast the spell that is being sustained by the Focus. There is a difference. The default ruling in canon is that the caster controls his spell. There is nothing in the rules that contradicts this in regards to the Sustaining Focus. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 14 2005, 03:24 AM
Post
#33
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
Yes it is a good analogy. It is the only one that makes sense. Or you could have hundreds of detailed illusions under your control, levitations, etc..., why not take a nap? You are not devoting any of your concentration to guide these spells according to what some want us to believe. And spell focuses can be placed on mundanes to give them bullet barriers etc... Should they get to control the levitation? There is a penalty to concentrating on a spell for a reason. Once you place it in the focus you are giving up CONTROL. You do not get to change it around anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2005, 03:20 AM
Post
#34
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
And there may or may not be anything in cannon. But it is likely that the designers knew that spells like levitation could not be used in sustaining focuses. They are for bullet barriers and such. Not anything that requires concentration to use. And this is a good change to add to canon if it is nt there.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2005, 03:30 AM
Post
#35
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Back that up with a canon quote then.
The TN penalties come from the strain of sustaining the spell itself, not from concentrating on it and adjusting it. Otherwise spells like Armor and Camouflage would not incur the TN penalty, because they do not require alteration after casting. I don't know where you are getting these 'hundreds of detailed illusions' from. The spells sustained by a Focus have to be cast on a person or object to be valid. That eliminates most Illusions from being useable by a Sustaining Focus. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2005, 03:23 AM
Post
#36
|
|||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Funny thing is, all this is irrelevant for Levitate. Let's look at the spell description:
It doesn't say "the person controlling the spell," it says caster. Does the sustaining focus cast the spell? No. Therefore it is not the caster, and has nothing to do with control over the livitate spell's effects. In fact, the same thing can be said of all sustained spells. In all the spell descriptions it's the *caster* that is granted the abilities, not whatever is currently in control of the spell. The exception is most detection spells, where it is the target which is granted the abilities. This whole discussion is irrelevant. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 14 2005, 03:31 AM
Post
#37
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
It isn't there for a reason. The designers did not intend anything like you state, otherwise the limitation would be listed in canon. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 14 2005, 03:29 AM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
Ok, forget the illusions. I have 12 sustaining focuses. I am going to cast levitate on each one. According to you, I can control the spell I cast. So my team is going to do the swan ballet suspended in mid air while I CONCENTRATE on studying astro physics. Since the focus does all the work somehow...See how stupid this sounds? You have to think past a simple levitate spell to show the abuse potential.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2005, 03:30 AM
Post
#39
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
Because the designers are perfect? Or because you say so? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 14 2005, 03:43 AM
Post
#40
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 351 Joined: 17-February 05 Member No.: 7,093 |
Rory, your first post and the comments therein relied upon a change to the stated canon rules, which is fine for a houseruling, but completely tertiary to a discussion of what the canon implications of the wordings are. Your analogy, as Fortune said, is a bad one. The sustaining focus does not cast the spell, the caster does, the focus maintains the spell, keeping it fed with mana, chanelling the various energies into the actual result of the spell. This says nothing, and I'm repeating myself ad nauseum here, nothing about whether the castor loses control of the spell when he casts it into (SR3 wording) a sustaining focus. Can you have 5 or 6 illusions active in sustaining foci, be gliding around on a levitate (in a sustaining foci) and be reading a book? Sure, why the heck not? If you want the focus addiction problems, you can have it. Hundreds? Where'd you get all that karma, and what kind of idiot activates hundreds of foci at once? Wait. I just gotta see if I can organize your thoughts for you.
Okay, does this refer to my point of view, or Tisoz' ? In both of them you're not devoting much of your concentration to guide the spells, but in one you're devoid of any ability to guide at all, and in the other you just have to control the spell with a few simple thoughts, as opposed to the large effort reqiured if you were sustaining it yourself. I'm going to assume you meant my side of things.
Huh? Alright. I think what you're trying to say is this: "Mundanes can be given sustaining foci and have Armor spells and such cast on them, should they be able to control a levitate spell similarly sustained on them?" My answer: No, of course not. They don't control the bullet barrier spell anymore than they would control a levitate spell. The caster controls such things.
Okay, this seems fairly clear. My answers: Yes, yes there is. No, no it doesn't. And finally: That's not supported by canon, and up to interpretation. [Edit:] Eyeless, that was brilliant. I didn't even think of that bit, thanks for the backup. This post has been edited by Sharaloth: Mar 14 2005, 03:39 AM |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Mar 14 2005, 03:44 AM
Post
#41
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086 |
Alright, mental excerise outfits on people ;) Time to sort out how a sustaining focus might work.
From Canon, we have: 1-it maintains a spell. 2-focii are magical and tied to their bonded's aura Now, for the sake of making everything nice and easy to deal with, we'll treat spells as a complex shape that the mage has to keep locked in his mind to sustain -- hermetics might invoke magical symbols and patterns into a complex shape, shamans might have something else, norse runes for a Loki shaman, a complex structure of stones and art, whatever. It all functions as a mana construct that is the spell. To sustain it, the caster must maintain the construct by holding the spell in his/her/its mind, which means that part of his attention must be on the spell, to keep it from fading. If he doesn't concentrate on the spell, it breaks down, the mana falling into natural flows around the mage, and the spell ends. Now, because sustaining focii are tied to the spell, and only sustain that spell, we can think of them a little like a framework that when the spell is cast, holds it. If you want a way to visualize it, we can say a bunch of tubes that the mage fills with water/mana, that shape the spell. Because the focus is tied to the mages aura (since it's a link to the mage, and bonded with karma), that the mage can cast the spell into the focus so that the spell does not require him to sustain it. The spell is still in his aura, still part of him, because the focus is part of him. (Again, it's a valid link for him, so it must contain part of his aura) So, you have a mage who's still got the spell going, but the spell is not decaying and ending without him holding the spell in his mind. He's still aware of the spell, it just doesn't break down. Now, as far as controlling the spell.. The mage not lost access to the spell, as it's still being maintained by something within his aura. The mage has not lost his skill with sorcery (obviously). The shape of the spell simply isn't breaking down and fading like it would without the sustaining focus. It doesn't require him constantly holding it and dividing his attention. He does something else, and the shape is still there when he directs his attention towards it. Now, for spells that are not just on/off.. Do different tasks require variations of the spell? Does going 'forward' with levitate require the spell to change it's shape? Does going up or down? Since there are not multiple spells, the answer is obviously 'no'. So changing the spell's shape isn't necessairy. Therefore, we can infer that there's some other mechanism for controlling how a spell works. Since the focus is part of the caster's aura, the spell is still within his aura, and so, we can infer, the control of the spell is still in the aura. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2005, 03:51 AM
Post
#42
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,144 Joined: 22-September 04 Member No.: 6,690 |
Oh my god, never before had I thought of how game breaking it would be to have a mid-air, magical reproduction of "Swan Lake." Despite all the posts people have made, I have yet to see any reasonable arguement for why sustaining a spell suddenly means that you have no more control over it.
As for hundreds of illusions running around while you sleep, I have no problem with that, if you somehow have hundreds of sustaining foci active. Those illusions will keep doing whatever it was you told them to do before you went to sleep. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2005, 03:46 AM
Post
#43
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
Well, it is late here. I have to sleep. Tomorrow I will show you that you are wrong.
In the meantime can anyone tell me how they plan to make exacting and advanced manuevers with 12 levitated friends while studying calculus? If anyone has ever juggled you will understand what I am saying. You just can't focus your mind on that many different tasks at once. There would be a penalty regardless of what rules lawyers dig up. It is just too sensless otherwise and I have yet to be convinced. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2005, 03:53 AM
Post
#44
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
According to you, though, a PC will be able to make them change and interact with the environment while the PC sleeps...because there is no "concentration" on the spell, so no penalty...all 12 of them.
But I was just joking. My team is going to fly around and drop grenades on you from an elevation out of gunshot range. And I am going to control it all without so much as a +1 TN to my other spells I will be casting. I have yet to see any reasonable argument for why sustaining a spell in a spell focus means you still have control over it. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 14 2005, 04:09 AM
Post
#45
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,144 Joined: 22-September 04 Member No.: 6,690 |
I can't recall if it's actually in the books, but doesn't it take a simple action to move around with a Leviatate spell? So all you need are 12 simple actions, and you have your ballet production.
I don't know what you think you're talking about, but it's nothing that I, or anyone else in this thread has said. Put away your strawmen before you get burned. The arguement being advanced is that when put into a Sustaining Foci, you still have the same ability to affect the performance of the spell as if you were still sustaining it yourself. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 14 2005, 04:17 AM
Post
#46
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 351 Joined: 17-February 05 Member No.: 7,093 |
I just had to keep a record of it, in case he edits later. Please do not throw down such a hefty gauntlet, you'll never be able to pick it up again, and I don't think the DS admins want it littering their floor. First of all, if I'm going to be levitating my 12 friends into some form of ballet (all with sustaining foci, mind) then I'm going to make damn sure I don't have to check for magic loss while I do it. So, giving the spell a good force 4 to keep my chummer's involuntary movements from disrupting the spell, as well as allowing for some of the faster manouvers (not that that'll be a problem, as you'll see). So I'm gonna be a grade 18 initiate at least. Now, to get to such a level of power, I've probably got to be able to do mental gymnastics that would drive lesser beings to madness, plus I'm so highly initiated into the magical world that a simple levitate spell is beneath my usual notice. But, hey, I've got this dream of making 12 people twirl and jump and all sorts of ballet stuff while floating in midair. No problem! With those sustaining foci, I only have to pay minimal attention to each person, possibly next to nothing. So, hey, my ballet dream is coming true, but it's too easy, so I decide to do something that REALLY takes up my brainpower, like calculus (Maybe I'm a shaman who knows grade 10 math and that's it, but can wrap the metaplanes around my little finger). So now I've got a bunch of floating people striking poses and gliding through the air with the greatest of ease, and I'm trying to work out derivatives at the same time. Give me an intelligence check, and maybe a couple perception ones so I don't have two of my participants slam facefirst into each other, and not only have I put on my air ballet, but I've picked up a new knowledge skill at the same time, Hurrah! That was a waste of my time, and yours. You cannot prove us wrong because there is no canon evidence of right or wrong in this case, just statement and interpretation. Take my word for it, it's not worth the effort. [edit:] Well, looks like I forgot to include the inhuman intelligence level of my example uber-magician. Thanks, Fortune. With his INT of 12, I'm beginning to think calculus wasn't hard enough to make the entire thing interesting. How's working on the unified field theory, proving Einstein from 1st principles, playing chess with Lofwyr AND directing ballet. That's a well stuffed straw man for ya. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 14 2005, 04:19 AM
Post
#47
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086 |
1) Sustaining a spell in a sustaining focus does not require concentration, since the spell does not vanish as it would normally. So it doesn't matter if you've got 1 focus, or 1000 focii, as far as sustaining goes. As far as focus addiction goes, you've just burnt out. Enjoy life as a mundane. 2) The debate is over here, where you don't lose control over a sustaining focus. Not over there, where you're manipulating 12 spells while reading a textbook and making people dance in midair. 3) Making complex manouvers would require concentration, because you're attempting to position multiple people at once in a complicated and rapidly changing pattern. It would not require concentration to maintain the spells. Studying calculus while doing that is simply trying to add a multitude of tasks to the casters list of things to do in hopes of creating an insane example so that you can attempt to justify a position that has no strength. 4) Do not confuse a group of trivial tasks with a complicated task. Chewing gum is a trivial task. Chewing 4 pieces of gum, without keeping them separate, is a trivial task. Chewing 4 pieces of gum and keeping them separate is a complicated task, not 4 simple tasks. Controlling 1 spell would therefore be a trivial task. Controlling 4 spells that are doing the same thing (4 levitate spells going up), would be a trivial task. Controlling 4 levitate spells going in interlocking spirals would be a complicated task. 5) The fact that you have not been convinced of something does not affect the validity or soundness of anothers position. At best, it indicates that you also have firm convicitons and a strong position. At worst, it indicates that they are attempting to argue with a wall. In neither case, does it make their position less valid. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 14 2005, 04:25 AM
Post
#48
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,144 Joined: 22-September 04 Member No.: 6,690 |
To dissociate from Rory's 12 strawmen ballet, there is nothing in the description of Sustaining Foci that says they alter the nature of the spell. Levitate moves things where you tell it to. So if you put Levitate into a Sustaining Focus, and then don't tell it to go anywhere, then nothing happens. I think that telling a Levitate spell where to go is a simple action (don't have my books), so if you've got multiple people sustained, you're going to be keeping yourself too busy spending simple actions juggling them around to read that Calculus book.
The fallacy of Rory's posts is that he's somehow gotten it into his head that not having to concentrate to sustain them = not having to concentrate to use them. Let's hope he clears himself up on that. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2005, 04:38 AM
Post
#49
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 351 Joined: 17-February 05 Member No.: 7,093 |
No mention of a simple action to move in SR3. I assume it's a free action because it's never stated otherwise. Is this errata'd or cleared up somewhere in MitS?
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2005, 04:33 AM
Post
#50
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
A few things about Rory's Strawman post(s)...
*Isn't the number of Foci a mage can use limited to Intelligence? *Sustaining Foci can only hold spells cast on a person or object. Independant Illusions that interact with the environment would not qualify as such. *Focus Addiction becomes a factor when a mage uses more than twice his magic rating in Force worth of Foci. As was said by many people, absolutely nothing at all in canon backs up your assertion that a mage loses or turns over control of a spell when he chooses to sustain it with a Focus. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 26th July 2025 - 11:15 PM |
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.