 sustain focus, can it sustain any spell?, need some book ninja fu |
  |
 Mar 14 2005, 11:36 PM
Post
#76
|
|||||||||
|
Canon Companion  Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187  |
Like Da9iel says, your quote does not have the all important "Caster has control" clause. If you read what I had wrote, I had already said that whoever has control over the spell was irrelevant, the sustaining was independent of the abilties granted by the spell. Which I think was Eyeless' point.
Yet there is nothing that says controller is the caster. Which was what you challenged me on, I think. |
||||||||
 |
 
|
||||||||
|
Mar 14 2005, 11:47 PM
Post
#77
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 942 Joined: 13-May 04 Member No.: 6,323 |
The quote says the spell lets the caster move things about. That's pretty clear about who controls the movement, to my mind.
JaronK |
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2005, 11:57 PM
Post
#78
|
|
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
Yes, the caster controls the movement but who controls the spell? The spell grants the movement capability and the caster has control of that capability. Which was my original point, there is no canon quote that definatively states that the controller of a spell is the caster. The caster may be granted abilities or control over those granted abilities (semantics here), but nothing definative about the controller of a spell.
But semantics aside and as many people has pointed out, who has control of a spell is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 15 2005, 12:19 AM
Post
#79
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 942 Joined: 13-May 04 Member No.: 6,323 |
So... you're saying that the sustaining focus has control of the spell, but the caster still controls what the spell does? What?
JaronK |
|
|
|
|
Mar 15 2005, 12:29 AM
Post
#80
|
|
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
I am saying that there is nothing in canon that say who or what controls the spell. And game mechanically, it doesn't matter who actually controls the spell because until now, no one has been able to actively seize control of another person's spell unlike spirits. The caster is the person who is granted certain abilities, he uses them.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 15 2005, 12:29 AM
Post
#81
|
|
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
Double post
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 15 2005, 02:34 AM
Post
#82
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 556 Joined: 28-May 04 From: Moorhead, MN, USA Member No.: 6,367 |
Yes, Eyeless, a little more slowly. :S P.S. Sorry about all the snips Eyeless. Trying desperately to make it clearer. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 15 2005, 03:00 AM
Post
#83
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 351 Joined: 17-February 05 Member No.: 7,093 |
The problem we're having, and this is just dumb, is with the word 'control'. According to strict canon, nobody (at all) can 'control' a spell. The book never mentions 'controlling' a spell, so therefore it cannot happen. According to reason and the conventions of conversation, 'control' as has been used by myself and some others refers to the effects of the spell, specifically levitate's allowing the caster to manipulate whatever it has been cast on. In this way the caster 'controls' the spell (more specifically, the effects of the spell as dictated in the spell's description). Just because canon does not use that word does not make the word unuseable in that context. Think of it as a figure of speech.
If that isn't clear enough for everyone... Then by all means, continue. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 15 2005, 03:28 AM
Post
#84
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
Yes, I was in a hurry, but no, you do not need to organize my thoughts.
I never said the focus has control of the spell's effects. I said that once the spell has been cast and placed sustained by a focus the caster no longer has control over the effects of the spell. Nothing posted so far has proven me wrong.
No we can't infer that. We can infer the spell is in the aura at best, not that it is still accessible to change once it is sustained by an inanimate object.
Burn me if you are able. My position has logic, yours has mostly rules lawyering and munchkinism.
That is one side of the argument. The other side is that you lose the ability to affect the performance of the spell because you are NOT sustaining it yourself. I am willing to accept either side. If it is the former, which makes less sense, then I want to see penalties applied for devoting part of your concentration to a task.
You must be joking right? As if I give a damn about this debate enough to edit my post? Don't flatter yourself, kid. Honestly, you are not that important to me.
Hefty gauntlet? I thought we were all here to get the rules ironed out to where they make sense? You make this sound like it is personal? I don't feel that way, but I could if you insist on trying to patronize me. I find when someone is unsure of themselves or their words they sometimes attack the other person. Once again, don't flatter yourself. If I am wrong, which I haven't been shown that I am yet, I won't lose a wink of sleep and I'll be right back in here whenever I feel like it to challenge the next ridiculous item if I wish to devote any time on it.
Actually that would be making an assumption that is not covered anywhere in the rules. If you have some sort of mulitasking skill then please share.
Canon, statements and rules lawyering do not concern me. I have common sense on my side. I think being able to control 6 levitation spells would require hefty TN penalties if it were allowed at all, which I have yet to see any reason it should be.
You can be insulting if you wish. Up to a point I care not. I am trying to be helpful. But you are a bit confused on how levitate works. You have to cast the spell on an item or a person. Levitate does not move "things" around as you claim. If you were to levitate a plate off a table it would require a second spell to levitate a glass of water off the same table.
I'm not sure if you understand me or not. I hope this will clear it up for you. 1) I could care less what the rules say or do not say. That is why we are discussing this issue. The rules need to be amended to clarify which side is correct. 2) Common sense tells you that if you are somehow able to go back and alter the spell after you bond it to a focus and this alteration demands some sort of mental effort to control there will be a TN penalty to additional actions attempted in the round. To highlight my point I wish to focus your attention on the fact that a mage could create multiple levitation spells and seemingly walk around with no effort to alter and modify the original spell parameters. 3) I say that once you cast a levitate spell you are able to alter it at will while you have it under direct control. But once you bond the spell to a focus you are no longer able to alter the spell. Nobody has shown me from any book where you are specifically able to alter a spell once it is sustained in a sustaining focus.
All of you can be rude if you wish. It doesn't make you correct.
Isn't it clear the point of my example is not how many foci a mage can use, but how complex it would be to control and alter a large number of sustained spells powered by foci?
Correct. That is why I said earlier to forget the illusions. You are attacking my example, but this has nothing to do with the point I am making, which makes it a waste of time.
And I am saying absolutely nothing in canon backs up your assertion that a mage can alter the spell once sustained in a focus. And certainly NOT without a penalty if at all.
Ok we will drop bags of bird shit on you and ruin your smug attitude instead. What does this have to do with the debate?
You ever operated a radio controlled model airplane? Imagine trying to control 6 of them and coreograph and detailed flight pattern with them all. My point is it would take a lot of concentration to alter the levitation spell of multiple foci. I am not set in stone against allowing spell foci to somehow allow the mage to alter the spell once cast, but I am adamant that there would be penalties if this were the case. My example was supposed to highlight this. For this type of spell there needs to be a further explanation and clarification. I am trying to be helpful even while others are being childish and rude.
I hope this post firms up my position?
They have altimeters. They move straight overhead. There is no skill involved. And according to those who disagree with me there is no action or effort at all for me to alter 6 spells sustained in foci and control the positioning of the team levitating overhead. I assume I have to at least look at them? Not sure how I am reading my calculus book while doing that? Nobody on that side of the debate has an answer. Seems munchkinism is running rampant in the forum lately.
There is nothing in the book that says you can alter a spell once it is sustained in a focus either. If you alter the direction the levitated object travels you have altered the spell. And you have used part of your mind to focus on the alteration, which should at the very minimum cause a TN penalty.
Exactly. The focus sustains the spell, but if you no longer have to concentrate on it the spell will work even while you are sleeping. It is powered by the focus now. The focus is an inanimate object and can't alter the spell in any way. It only powers the spell placed in it. In the case of levitation the spell had to target an object or a person. The caster was able to alter the direction and speed of levitation while he was powering it, but once the spell was transferred to the focus no further alterations are allowed. This makes much more sense if it works the way I say it does, because there is no penalties mentioned involved with sustaining foci. Nobody here will ever convince me there should be no penalties to alter a spell like this just because it is powered by a focus.
Would they float in place? Or would they drop to the ground? Or, as I believe, would they only go in the direction that was set when the spell was sustained and then transferred to be powered by a focus?
If you knew the rules half as good as you claim to, you would know that a focus has to be placed in physical contact with the target and once it is separated from that target the focus is deactivated and the spell ends.
Yes, it certainly will. And once it is set in the manner the mage desired and powered by a focus it can't be altered in any way from then on. You set the speed and direction of your levitation and that is it, no more concentrating on it at all.
You are changing the spell if you allow the caster to change the effects from the point the spell was powered by a focus. This seems to be at odds with the rest of your post that states no changes can be made to the spell once cast and sustained in the focus.
No, it does not allow you to move "things" about. It allows you to move one thing. And while the mage is sustaining the spell he is free to alter the spell in any way he wants. He even has a TN penalty to sustain the spell. But once the spell is placed in a focus, it can no longer be altered is my argument. Armor spells work perfectly for this, but levitation spells require further alteration of the spell and concentration by the caster. There would be a penalty for this if it were allowed. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mar 15 2005, 03:49 AM
Post
#85
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086 |
Return to my post which included a discussion on whether controlling a spell required changing the spell. If you can't remember, the relevant section is:
Now, please stop and consider it. Changing the spell is NOT required to change directions of motion. Now.. your attempt to refute my claim that the control of the spell is still within the caster's aura... Prove that it is not, using logic. The focus is within the aura. The spell is within the focus. Perhaps a diagram? ( aura ( focus ( spell ) ) And, as a point of reference: The tasks to move someone/something with levitate are purely mental. There is no waving of arms, motion of fingers. In short, nothing physical, which is where a large amount of the difficulty of multiple tasks comes in. Now.. as for your comment about dropping bird shit ... How is proving that your idea is hardly a serious threat off topic? You are insisting that something is gamebreaking, I disproved your example. Moving right along.. you disagree with a logically drawn conclusion (not explicitly stated by canon, hence, inference, but logically drawn from canon), without giving any validation for why you find it to be a false conclusion. Edit: Just to make things easier for people who don't want to go back through to read the entire thing I'd written up about sustaining focii -- 'shape of the spell' and such in the quoted section, just refers to the actual spell itself, and that a different 'shape' is a different spell. Editted again, I must be more tired then I think... the section beginning with 'Moving right along' refers to the 'no refuting of the argument must by necessity mean that the argument is valid and acceptable'... and is an explanation for why it still hasn't been refuted. Hopefully this is the last missing thing I wrote. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 15 2005, 03:52 AM
Post
#86
|
|||||||||||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
And nothing you have posted has been proof that you are right. As you say though, you don't care what the actual rules state, so this discussion has come down to how you would rule it regardless of what is or isn't canon.
I wasn't being either rude or insulting. I was addressing your points, which in literary terms are correctly described as Strawman arguments. Besides, I am amazed that you don't think you are being rude and insulting by, among other things, calling everyone that disagrees with you a munchkin and/or rules-lawyer?
Nor does it make you correct.
If you look at the context that this particular post of mine was made, you'd see that nowhere did I state that the spell would still be active. The post was in reference to the question of whether a person could pick up and use a fallen opponent's Focus without rebonding it. Even if it didn't need to be rebonded, the appropriate spell would have to be cast again for it to work. I never even implied anything different. You chose to totally take that comment out of context, and make a personal attack based solely on Sweet FA. :please: |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Mar 15 2005, 04:11 AM
Post
#87
|
|||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 351 Joined: 17-February 05 Member No.: 7,093 |
I can't resist responding, but I will resist itemizing and considering the entire post, because I'm sure others will be able to do it much better than I.
For my own sake, yes I did. You were making little sense, so I tried to make the most of what you gave me, kid. I'm fairly certain I did a respectable job.
I hate to have to point this out, but your statements make me think you do actually give a damn. Behaviour like that, such as making outrageous or vicious statements and then later editing them out to make one appear more rational than one is to the latecoming reader, has been known to happen before. So don't think I was singling you out or anything, kid. I woulda done that for anyone who said what you did. As to the Gauntlet thing, that is precisely what you did, Rory, you tossed a big 'ol gauntlet. You claimed you would show us that we're 'wrong', in what way is that not a challenge?
This is why you can't prove us wrong, kid, and why you're more than likely to be ignored, dissected or ridiculed for this. I'm hoping you'll get off easy, but life isn't always fair.
This is painful, kid. Levitate does move 'things' around, the 'things' it is cast on. Don't be asinine.
Apologies to all for the big quote. 1) see above, re: why you won't prove us wrong. You're just asking for trouble, kid. Sorry, but you are. We're discussing the rules in canon. If you could care less about what the rules say or do not say, don't join in the discussion, as it is not for you. 2) Common sense tells you jack about what you can and cannot do with magic. Common sense tells you you cannot throw fireballs from your hands, so who knows what types of common sense rules affect magic? All we've got to go on are the ones we're given in the books, but as you've already stated, you don't care about the rules. I'd like to draw your attention to a previously posted example, like the chewing gum one, or my own 'levitate spell go up' bit. The concentration required to alter the spell (if indeed you can at all, which is the aim of the discussion) is minimal at best, unless you're attempting the strawman ballet or similar effect. And as for a mage walking around with a bunch of sustaining foci active with 'effort to alter and modify the original spell parameters'... I think your thoughts need some organising again, kid. 3) yeah, that would be the whole question under debate, now wouldn't it? Literally, you have no support for your position either. Since you don't care about canon, I'm sure that doesn't bother you, but it does mean you have no way to prove us 'wrong'. Try to keep up with things, kid, at the very least it's easier to build your strawmen when you know what's going on. Let me clarify what I'm saying here, kid. You are making a strawman fallacy. That is, while the real discussion is whether or not a sustained spell can be used like it says in the spell description, or can only be turned on/off with a single perameter; you decided that you were going to attack having multiple sustaining foci active and performing intricate ballet with the floating objects. That is a strawman fallacy. Now, about that 'proving us wrong' thing you said you were going to do... When can we see it? |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Mar 15 2005, 04:31 AM
Post
#88
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,144 Joined: 22-September 04 Member No.: 6,690 |
I apolegize for talking over your head, since you obviously have no idea what a strawman is. Nonetheless, that is pretty much the only thing you have offered us. As for the rest of your post, how do you qualify your overly copius exposition as any more logical, and any less "rules lawyering" than what we've been doing? I also challenge you to try and prove that anything said in opposition to you has in any way been "munchkinism." Since really, it's getting hard to tell what you think you're argueing anymore, I'm going to restate the base arguement of sustaining levitation, and to elimanate the strawmen, it's one focus, with one spell on it (so shock and surprise, just like most of the other posts in this topic, it will be a position well supported by logic). The description for Levitation in SR3 states: 'The target of the spell can be moved anywhere in the caster's line of sight at a rate of speed equal too [etc].' At no point in there, or anywhere else in the description is it even vaguely inferred that when sustained, or locked on a sustaining focus, the direction of the Levitation is locked in a straight line along the last specified axis. Logicaly the spell should be able to keep on moving in whatever direction the mage tells it. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 15 2005, 04:42 AM
Post
#89
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
If the spell is powered by a focus it does. Once you place a spell in a focus it can't be altered in any way. This includes changing direction. If that is not canon, it should be, just using common sense.
Sure. A car is made up of many parts. Once you place tires on the car, you can't inflate them to a higher psi without stopping and physically doing that. Same as placing your spell in the foci. It is set to a certain parameter. Once it is set that is it. You need to recast it if you want to alter it.
This is completely baseless. So can you compose orchestra music, solve mathematical problems, memorize a speech, and three other tasks in your mind? A large amount, no...the entire amount of difficulty of multiple tasks is that your brain is only able to focus on just so much at once. I can jog a mile and flip you off while waving for your attention just fine. It is the mental tasks that are impossible to multi task.
You have disproved nothing.
The problem is you have not stated anything logical. Nor have you explained how you can multi task without penalties assuming the spell can be altered once placed in a focus.
If the rules favor being able to levitate 6 different people in multiple directions without a penalty, then you are correct. I do not care what they say. You still miss the point that we are here to discuss the way it should be. I thought we were working together on this, until the insults started flying. The bottom line is I do care what is canon though or I would not be voicing my opinion.
You were being rude. I would never tell someone his points in a debate were like strawmen unless I intended to be rude to the person. I find that when others do this to me it is because they can't find a way to assail my position with facts. If I refer to your points as stupid ideas it is the same thing. Straw men easily defeated, stupid ideas easily defeated. There is no difference.
I don't call everyone who disagrees with me a munchkin or a rules lawyer. Just the ones that say it is ok to juggle 6 people with 6 sustaining focuses without a single penalty to other tasks. But anyone wishing to have their cake and levitate too is pushing for munchkinism and abuse by someone much more clever than I.
You are correct. It was meant as a personal attack in response to your strawman comment. I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of. You are adamant that you are correct about this issue, yet you didn't know the rules on deactivating foci. It is simple. Either a mage can alter the levitation type spell once it is powered by a focus, in which case it only make sense that he will get a TN penalty to other tasks while he manuevers. Or the levitate type spell can't be altered once the parameters are set. Those are the simple choices. I can work with either. My opinion is the latter. I have stated the reasons why above. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Mar 15 2005, 04:39 AM
Post
#90
|
|||||||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
I'm going to address three of your points in reverse order, as they're a bit more logical to do that way. I conveniently ignored most of the personal attacks and responses to personal attacks; hope you don't mind.
Ah-ha! Here's your problem! You see, you are making a false assumption here: namely that sustaining the spell equates to having "control" to "alter" the spell. The trick here is that you cannot in fact "alter" anything about a spell once it's been cast; that would be a horrifyingly munchkin-tastic thing to do. Being able to "alter" a spell would mean being able to change the Force of the spell on-the-fly, or something equally ridiculous, which is plainly out of the Sorcery skill. Noone can "control" a spell; there is nothing in canon that would ever give you an ability to do so. The only thing you can *occasionally* do is use the abilities granted by the spell in different ways. Note that this has nothing to do with "controlling" the spell itself; the spell exists merely to give you the ability to do something. As an analogy, look at your right arm. You can't "control" the existence of your right arm, to "alter" it in any way: you have four fingers and a thumb, etc. You *can* however manipulate the arm to do various tasks, like write out long witty responses to other members of this forum. It doesn't matter if that arm is being supported by your own two feet or if you're comfortably lying down and typing from your bed, letting your bed support the arm for you; the essential properties of the arm are unchanged. This isn't a particularly good analogy, but it's one that applies for spells.
Again, you seem to be making the false assumption that maintaining whatever mana weave/matrix/pattern that gives the spell existence has anything to do with control over the abilities granted by the spell. In *our* game world--you know, the one that exists in the books and abides by the canon rules, rather than the one that exists only in your mind and throws out the rules whenever they contradict you--these have no clear and necessary relationship, and there's no reason they should. Sometimes the ability to control the spell's granted abilities isn't even given to the caster himself; in the case of Clairvoyance for instance (as well as most other Detection spells) control over the abilities granted by the spell are given to the *target* of the spell, the same one granted the abilities in the first place. In these cases the caster is not exerting any "mental control" over the spell at all, and so according to your argument he would not be receiving a +2 modifier to anything. In fact, according to your argument it would be the *target* of the Clairvoyance spell that would be receiving the +2 TN modifier, as he is the one exerting "mental control over the spell" and "modifying the original spell parameters," which would allow the mage to cast and maintain a thousand Claorvoyance spells over the entire population of Seattle and still study quantum physics in his spare time.
Not only the rules, but the flavor text surrounding the rules are pretty damn clear that not only are you wrong, but your argument makes no sense, as others and I have attested. You are making two logical errors: one is making the false assumption that the mental strain required to alter the parameters of the abilities granted by the spell, and the other is assuming that just because your position is wrong that the world should bend over backwards just to make you right. Well sorry, but the world just doesn't work that way. Controlling abilities given by spells is, according to the rulebooks, apparently just as automatic as moving your feet, breathing, blinking, telling your heart to beat, telling your glands to produce hormones, and focusing your eyes, all of which you do automatically without even thinking about it very hard. Just accept that the brain is a complicated instrument and is more than capable of doing several things at the same time.
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Mar 15 2005, 04:40 AM
Post
#91
|
|
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
Since Canon does not state that the caster of Levitate suffers from any TN penalties while using it, he does not suffer TN penalties. The sustaining focus only takes over the sustaining of the spell, the caster still is able to move or lift things as per effect of Levitate.
If he is simply moving something, he suffers no penalty. If he is doing other more complex things, it becomes a use of a skill and that takes a Complex Action. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 15 2005, 04:45 AM
Post
#92
|
|||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,144 Joined: 22-September 04 Member No.: 6,690 |
I'll make this simple for you: name one person who has said it's okay to juggle 6 people with six sustaining focuses without a single penalty. Take as much time as you want.
Except this whole thread has made it quite obvious that you can't. *edit* And once more, the book ninja has beat us to the actual point. Next time, Gadget, NEXT TIME! |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Mar 15 2005, 05:12 AM
Post
#93
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
I am fully aware of the rules for deactivating Foci. Those rules are not even remotely related to either the question or my answer though. The question, in case you missed it in the midst of your ranting, was whether a character could pick up and use a Focus of a downed Security Mage without rebonding it. No mention was made about whether the associated spell would have to be recast or not, because we all know that the spell would, in fact, have to be recast in either case. Once again you are making shit up in a vain attempt to slander my rules knowledge, and obscure the point of the discussion. I have never once claimed (unlike others here) to be all-knowledgeable as ar as the rules are concerned, although I do claim to have a fairly strong grasp on most of what is and isn't canon. As to my being 'adament' about being right on the thread's topic, where do you get that? I have merely stated that there is nothing in canon that states that a mage is no longer able to control the effects of a spell when it is put into a Sustaining Focus. In this I am correct, because there is nothing in canon about it. If a mage does indeed lose control of the spell's effects, then one would logically think it would be included somewhere in the rules that this happens. And whether you think it is rude to point out fallacies in arguments or not is immaterial to me, just as my opinion (as well as that of most of the other posters here) is immaterial to you. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 15 2005, 05:22 AM
Post
#94
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086 |
I believe I have sufficiently proven that changing a direction is not changing the spell. The spell is levitate, there have been plenty of copies of the spell posted. Perhaps another will allow you to understand what it is said? I'll put a translation after to help.
Translated:
Please indicate where this makes any reference to the sustaining of the spell?
What parameters are set when casting a sustained levitate spell into a focus? Just the target. The caster gets to move it around how he wants to. That's the spell description. He has to make the object move, it doesn't move on its own when he casts the spell. For your car analogy to be valid, then the spell would have to be fundamentally different and require recasting to change directions, even without a sustaining focus. Quite simply, making the direction a part of the car is making the requirement for spells 'levitate up', 'levitate left' 'levitate right' 'levitate forward' 'levitate backward' etc. A correct car analogy would be: A spell the caster is sustaining: A car without cruise control. Sustaining the spell is roughly equivalent to keeping your foot at the correct spot on the gas. Moving the target is steering. A spell a focus is sustaining: Cruise control. You still have to steer, but you don't need to control the velocity.
It is the physical limitations which make tasks impossible. It is comparatively simple to do multiple things in your head at once. Likewise -- how is picturing how you want a few things floating to move even remotely comparable to to composing an orchestra or writing a speech?
No, I gave valid reasons why it's impossible to levitate such that you can drop grenades and be safe from ground firearms. You presented it as a reason why sustaining focii with levitate spells is gamebreaking. Now, I am going to reiterate something that's been argued before, that you have not touched on. P1: Sustaining and using an armour spell gives a +2 TN. P2: Sustaining and using a levitate spell gives a +2 TN. P3: If a task is more complicated, then it applies a higher modifier to the TN. P4: Sustaining and using a levitate spell does NOT have a higher modifier to the TN. Conclusion: Using and sustaining a levitate spell is NOT more complicated then sustaining an armour spell, by the Logical Form 'Denying the anticedent' or, 'Motis Tolens' if I'm remembering my latin correctly.. it's been a while since I had to use the latin for the form. Extrapolation based upon this conclusion: Either sustaining a levitate spell is easier than sustaining an armour spell (+1), and the other +1 to the TN is from moving the person, which makes no sense by canon, OR moving someone/something with a levitate spell is a trivial task. What this means, is that there is NO valid reason for why you should have TN mods for moving someone around with a sustaining focus. There has been plenty of evidence given for why you should be able to change the direction the person under the spell is moving, so I won't spend the time writing out the argument for you. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mar 15 2005, 05:21 AM
Post
#95
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
I'm sure opinions will vary, kid.
I do give a damn about the outcome of the ruling if it gets added to errata, but I don't give a damn about you or whether you want to play forum Gestapo or not, smart boy.
You think it was an outrageous statement to say I would show you wrong? Don't flatter yourself, kid. You are letting your ego get the best of you and it is showing in print. I am unimpressed so far.
You need to get a life then, if all you can do is save posts from editing so you can cry foul and finger point later. I mean who really gives a damn? I'm here to get a ruling straight, not to bicker back and forth with some pimple faced kid that thinks he is all that.
you've been posting here what a whole 28 days and you are concerned with me getting ridiculed and let off easy? What have you been smoking, boy? You act like this is going to crush me if I step on anyone's toes or get proved wrong. Don't make me laugh, and please try to do something positive with your life other than picking fights with guys old enough to be your grand father.
Right, don't be asinine, kid. You get to move one item. You said things, as in plural items. Read the spell, smart boy. You have to cast on a target...as in singular target. And you do not get to change targets once the spell is cast.
That is one of the lamest arguments I have ever heard. And mine are straw men? OK.
BS. It is not minimal to alter a sustained spell like levitation. Let alone 6 of them.
I'm perfectly at ease with what I have stated. You are all over the map. I'd check my notes, school boy.
Actually I thought I made it clear I do care about canon and I think canon supports my argument better than yours. I don't agree with everything canon though. Sheeeeeep.
Some people refuse to believe shit stinks until they get their noses rubbed in it.
Oh, I've seen some strawmen arguments posted but they weren't mine.
You fear the label of munchkin, yet want to be ale to levitate 6 objects with no TN penalties. Need I look further for evidence?
In order to be supported by logic it must work in all situations as mine does. Yours leaves a munchkin in place levitating 6 objects while eating pizza and solving crossword puzzles. I'd say your logic has no base or support at all.
I've never refuted that while sustained by the mage the spell couldn't be altered as desired because he is concentrating on the spell and the mana. But once the mage stops concentrating on the spell and places it in a focus the spell in my opinion would be set to the last command. This is why certain sustainable spells should not be allowed to be placed in foci. And my whole point is that IF they are, there should be a TN penalty representing the distraction of changing the spell parameters. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mar 15 2005, 05:35 AM
Post
#96
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
I'll argue that it shuld incur an additional +1 TN.
That works great for 1 focus. Now explain 6. In 6 different directions and speeds and elevations of course. I refuse to believe there is no TN penalty. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 15 2005, 05:37 AM
Post
#97
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,144 Joined: 22-September 04 Member No.: 6,690 |
At least you're honest enough to admit your own failings. [ Spoiler ]
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 15 2005, 05:45 AM
Post
#98
|
|||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
You put the question marks when you asked the question. I make no assumptions.
And I fully agree, which is why I m here hoping something will be added. I hope you are here for that reason as well? Others seem to be in some weird war of words with me and have lost track of the topic.
It' s only logical if you "assume" the game designers are infallible, which I do not. I think they may have overlooked the ramifications and possible abuse of spells like levitation. Nobody has yet been able to solidly face up to the 6 foci situation I have presented. In order for it to be playable it should be covered under all situations. This has not bee naddressed.
Actually I do value your opinion, Fortune, or I wouldn't be posting. I am trying to help. I won't react well to insults though. Anyone responding to me with civility will receive the same in turn. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Mar 15 2005, 05:56 AM
Post
#99
|
|||||||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
I'm not sure I follow your logic here. I did not ask the question in the first place. In fact, I'll repost the entire exchange between Sandoval Smith and myself concerning the 'acquired' Focus ...
You see that there is no inference on either person's part that the spell would still be active. The question was about the Focus itself, and the spell to which it had previously been attuned. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Mar 15 2005, 05:58 AM
Post
#100
|
|||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
No, you haven't actually. This is a unique kind of spell that requires concentration on the part of the caster for it to operate correctly, unlike an armor spell for instance. Once you place it into a focus the spell is set. Nothing in canon says you can change the spell once it is placed in a focus.
The reference was in the spell header with the big "S" for sustained.
Speed and direction of the item levitated.
As long as he concentrates on it, yes. The minute he stops the spell drops.
Since you agree the car analogy works, then imagine having 5 other cars following behind you trying to stay on the road that you are controlling with remote control devices. Now imagine you have to do something as simple as take a piss. Do you think it would be easy to control all that as your side of the debate claims? if you can't create a working ruling that holds up to munchkinism then it needs fixing. All I am saying is do not allow spells to be sustained that need concentration to keep them going, or penalize them with TN penalties. Can you at least address this? |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 8th February 2025 - 07:59 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.