 conjurers and allies, clarify please |
  |
 Jul 29 2005, 02:51 PM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 351 Joined: 17-February 05 Member No.: 7,093  |
Northern Lights, I think you should re-read the description of Ally Spirits and Free Spirits in MitS, paying close attention to the sections headed "Sorcery" under 'Powers of Allies', "Skills" under 'Designing an Ally', and "Sorcery" under 'Powers of Free Spirits'. Note the repetative and consistent use of the word 'skill' in reference to the Ally Spirit's ability to use Sorcery. Pick out some key phrases like 'equal to Conjurer's at time of summoning' and 'only have skills that its master possesses'.
As for Free Spirits... yes, Free Allies always have sorcery. Allies still bound to a Conjurer Aspected Magician, do not. Even when they become free, they still only gain their initial Sorcery Skill at one (assuming they get the power the moment they become Free, and that they start off, like the book says, with 1 point of Spirit Energy), which they must then raise via transferred Good Karma (not in 'power levels', but as skill levels, the same as everyone else) |
 |
 
|
|
Jul 29 2005, 03:24 PM
Post
#27
|
|||||||||
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
And yet not a single one of those quotes specifically state that a conjuror may not learn Sorcery as an Active Skill. The same description of Active Skills may be applied to Knowledge Skills, the descriptions are too general and vague to be useful for any definative proof. Knowledge skills are also used to perform actions. For example, how do you speak English? You use the Knowledge(Language) skill: English.
Knowledge Skills do the same thing, see example above.
Why does the burnout's Active Magical Skills are converted to Background Knowledge Skills? It is because his Magic rating is 0. Note that I am not saying that he can no longer use the ability but his Magic rating is 0. The loss of the ability is due to his Magic rating being 0. The conversion of his Active Magical Skills to Background is the result of his Magical rating being 0. The conjuror never had the ability to use Sorcery, unlike the burnout. The burnout's skill conversion is due to his Magic being 0. The precedent DOES NOT apply as the conjuror's Magic is not 0. While you cannot perform or use an active skill, it still doesn't mean that you cannot learn it. Yes, you may learn them as Knowledge Skills but it does not preclude you from learning them as Active. It is just that Knowledge Skills are never useless (p89 SR3). |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Jul 29 2005, 03:37 PM
Post
#28
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086 |
Just out of curiosity..
Would it be accurate to say that aspected magicians (and in a sense mages and adepts) have magic 0 with respect to ALL forms of magic not part of their aspect? As in, adepts (non-magician's way) have magic 0 with respect to sorcery/conjuring. Mages/Shamans have magic 0 with respect to adept powers. Fire Elementalists have magic 0 with respect to everything unrelated to fire. sorcerors have magic 0 with respect to conjuring. conjurers have magic 0 with respect to sorcery It seems like the logical explanation for what the aspecting means. By that explanation, it's obvious that a conjurer can't learn the active skill of sorcery. Going at it from a different angle (just for some straight out logic).. to increase an active skill, you pretty well always have to use it. You can't just read a book and suddenly be that much better.. you have to practice, test, and so on. Since a conjurer couldn't use sorcery, he/she wouldn't be able to test, practice etc, and so wouldn't be able to learn/improve. It's similar to the blind, deaf quadriplegic.. learning to shoot with a pistol. How does he/she do it? Could have every ounce of theoretical knowledge (background skill) possible but could never actually gain the active skill. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 29 2005, 03:47 PM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
He could shoot in a UV host, for one thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 29 2005, 03:57 PM
Post
#30
|
|||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 351 Joined: 17-February 05 Member No.: 7,093 |
Actually, they all do. Read them again, support, build up, then main point. Two quotes to indicate Active Skills are what your character can DO, one quote to indicate what happens when you have Active Skills that you cannot use, and one to cement that Conjurers cannot have Sorcery as an active skill.
Ahem,
Your example is defeated, the descriptions given do NOT apply to equallyKnowledge Skills and Active Skills. They apply strictly to Active Skills, and the amalgamation that is Language Skills.
Actually, the reasoning goes something like this: The burnout's magic rating is 0. Therefore he loses the ability to use Sorcery. Therefore he cannot use sorcery. Therefore his Sorcery Active Skill (if any) is converted to a Background Knowledge Skill, being completely unusable except as theoretical knowledge. The burnout's magic being 0 is only relevant in the fact that he is now unable to use magical skills. The Conjurer is automatically unable to use Sorcery, he doesn't even have to burn out to lose the ability since he never had it in the first place, therefore it cannot be learned as an Active Skill. The Precedent DOES APPLY. Otherwise the Burnout would be able to keep his Magical Active Skills, albeit in an unusable form. He does not. Instead they are converted to Background Knowledge Skills. The Conjurer CANNOT use Sorcery, by the descriptions of Active Skills and the precedent set up by the burnout rules, the Conjurer CANNOT have the Sorcery Active Skill. As to Knowledge Skills never being useless, who ever said a Sorcery Knowledge Skill was useless? It's quite useful for all sorts of things, especially if you've got Astral Perception and can use the knowledge skill to identify spell forms and such. You can't use it to cast spells, though. That's Active Sorcery, and that's something an Aspected Conjurer can't have. Edit:
Which we can't allow, considering Dawnshadow's point was in how someone for whome practicing the skill is impossible could learn it as an active skill. Should this blind, deaf, quadroplegic get access to a UV host where he/she can practice shooting, and doesn't use the Computer-skill cop out, then that voids the example, since now this person can practice. If we stipulate that access to a UV host is also impossible for this poor creature, then how would they learn the Active Skill? |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Jul 29 2005, 04:50 PM
Post
#31
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 188 Joined: 16-June 03 From: Da Burgh, PA Member No.: 4,751 |
As I said in my first example, that was a houserule by one GM not something I would expect to be allowed in any game. Neither did I actually have Sorcery, I had Sorcery Background that I had to buy and improve as an active skill. Which I did not do since I was a conjuror not a sorceror. Sorry if I was not explicit enough.
On the strict side I do not believe that an ally needs the sorcery skill to learn spells or cast them. It just makes them better at it. I don't have my books with me so would someone please confirm my faulty memory? Regardless of whether you can teach spells to your ally, summoning spirits is the most unique aspect to SR magic and damn cool to boot. Conjurors also suffer less of a downside from getting cyber than other magically active characters. I found this ability to mix tech and my favorite part of SR magic the real lure for me as a player. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 29 2005, 04:56 PM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
No, they do not. They are not explicit quotes that specifically state that non-usable Active skills may not be learnt. You are trying to build up towards that conclusion, it is a conclusion you are trying to infer. It is 1) one quote that state that active skills are require actions (do knowledge skills NOT require actions?), 2) one quote that says active skills create effects (do knowledge skills not create any effect?), 3) one quote to say what happens when you lose the ability to use a skill(NOT when you NEVER had the ability in the first place), and 4) the last to state that Conjurors cannot USE Sorcery (which I am not disputing). Any skill require action and any skill create effect. Thus your first 2 quotes are invalid as they are too general to provide any real meaning. There is NO precedent. If Conjuring truly cannot be learnt by a conjuror, it would be explicitly stated like that in the case of Info Sortilage. It would have been stated in the skill description that it is unavailable to conjurors. Moreover, the descriptions on p 160 SR3 are generalisations and not comprehensive. If they were, then adepts would never be able to Center or Divine or use the explicitly stated Sorcery(Astral combat). Also in reference to MITS, there is no mention of any skill conversion from Active to Background. While I am willing to accept the conversion as stated in SR3, because of the omission in MITS, I am not convinced that Active skills when made unusable become Knowledge skills. If the conversion were true, it would have been reflected in MITS as well. And that conversion would be one hell of a mess if the burnout went to Aleph Society.
How about Virtuso? The language skill example was an off-the-cuff one and I concede the point. But Virtuso is the usage of a Knowledge skill to affect something or somehow make an impact. Since you admit that Knowledge skills are not useless, then what is the difference between Active and Knowledge as describe by your quotes? If the blind deaf man does not have access to a UV host, he might try for a spell called Use Skill. Should he not have access to Use Skill, he might have access to a metaplane. My point is that because we cannot know when something might have an application, we should not be restricting something that is not explicitly restricted in the books, however glib the rationalisation might be. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 29 2005, 06:10 PM
Post
#33
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 351 Joined: 17-February 05 Member No.: 7,093 |
Yes, yes they do. That they are not explicit, that there is no quote saying 'An Aspected Conjurer cannot learn the Sorcery Active Skill, so there' is countered by there being no explicit statements of 'An Aspected Conjurer can learn the Sorcery Active Skill, so there'. There are, however, several implicit statements to the effect of the first statement, as I have shown. If you're going to argue that the rules say a Conjurer CAN learn Sorcery, back it up like I have with my point. 1) The quote is that Active Skills are required FOR actions, Knowledge Skills are not required for actions, just knowing things. 2) Yes Active Skills create effects, as they are used to perform ACTIONS. Knowledge skills have one effect: the possessor of the knowledge skill knows things. Performance Knowledge skills are an interesting case, and I'll get to them when I address your Virtuoso deflection in a bit. 3) What is the difference between never being able to do something, and suddenly becoming unable to do something? There isn't one. Someone born without arms cannot catch a ball with his hands, someone who lost their arms in an accident cannot catch a ball with their hands. That one started without the ability (Conjurer) and one lost the ability (Burnout) is irrelevant to the fact that neither of them have that ability. The burnout section's statment allows us to infer (yes, inference is an accepted means of coming to a conclusion) that any Active Skills that cannot be used (for whatever reason) become Background Knowledge Skills. The Precedent stands. The first two quotes are completely valid, they apply to Active Skills, and not to all skills generally (You could make the case that they apply generally to Active Skills, but that's just damn rediculous and doesn't help your point at all). That the conversion was not reflected in MitS is irrelevant, as it was stated in SR3 and not contradicted in MitS or any other book to my knowledge (if you can come up with a contrary statement from another SR3 book, it would be viable). I've addressed the difference between Active Skills and Knowledge Skills as described by my quotes, so there's only two points left to address. First, the blind, deaf, quadroplegic man. The point here is not to find ways to have this guy practice the skill. The whole point of the example is that he CANNOT practice the skill. This man is completely mundane, without matrix access, and doesn't have friends or money for good measure. Your point, if it's truly about not knowing when something will have an application, is completely irrelevant. We're discussing whether this guy could learn the Active Skill of Pistols, not whether it might be useful for him, having no way to use a gun in the first place. The Pistols Knowledge skill, which this guy could indeed learn (difficult though it might be), might be quite useful for many reasons. But the Active Skill will be forever beyond his reach, which is the entire damn point. Second, Virtuosos and Performance Skills in general. This is a tricky one. It doesn't invalidate my other points (unfortunately for your argument), but it does present some interesting arguments on the state of some Knowledge Skills. Centering and Divining, for instance, both require a knowledge skill AND an active skill (and are freely available to ALL awakened, explicitly). The Virtuoso metamagic only requires an Artistic Knowledge Skill, as does some of the other new abilities presented in SOTA '64. Artistic, creative skills as presented in MitS can be either Active or Knowledge, presumably with the intent of keeping things in tune with SR3 descriptions of skills. Active Skills are something you can DO (dancing, moving meditation, playing musical instruments), Knowledge skills are something you KNOW (or only require thought, such as non-moving meditation, tarot divining, astrology). Interestingly, in SOTA 64, it doesn't state that the skill used to Perform is knowledge, only the skill used to create the performance. It does say to perform the Virtuoso piece one must succeed in a test with the appropriate performance skill, but nothing about Knowledge skills. this means that Dancing is then an Active Skill, but it's Background Knowledge component is what is used to figure out what steps to do when and what type of music (if any) to set it to. Poetry, Oration, and other such performances would likely use the same skill for creation and performance (a Language Skill). Painting, Drawing and Sculpting (of those mentioned) are the ones you should focus on, but even then one can have a Painting Active Skill, representing the skill of actually putting brush to canvas and making it work, and a Painting Background Knowledge skill, representing the knowledge oif which colours work well together, proper lighting, etc, etc. The Knowledge skill IS the one use to design the piece here, but that just indicates the rating it will have, and it could still be the Active Skill doing all the work of the drawing and sculpting and painting, with the careful and magically-fuelled design giving it it's supernatural appeal. Hmm. Too vague to come to definite conclusions. I'll give this one to your side for now, but it's riding the line, and will need a good deal more backup to topple my argument. This post has been edited by Sharaloth: Jul 29 2005, 06:27 PM |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 29 2005, 09:30 PM
Post
#34
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 223 Joined: 23-December 03 Member No.: 5,929 |
ouch my head hurts! :wobble:
this is seriously way too much for me. i'll merely say that i am astonished at the depth people are taking this to, and quite glad they can still bear to think so deeply. not enough vodka yet guys! so first off, my original question, in the celarest terms i can think to put it would be: is is explicitly forbidden to have the sorcery skill as an aspected conjurer? and the answer that i can see is: no. now, what that leaves for inference is something you guys can run away with if you want, but i've found that a good rule for shadowrun is that unless it says "no!" then it is possible. i will agree with the fact that there are several instances where you can draw that answer. but none where the answer to the quesiton is stated. the single biggest ambiguity i have is whether or not it would then be passed on to a summoned ally spirit. i personally don't see where spirits aside from ally spirits have skills. nowhere in the descriptions of spirits that i can see (and admittedly, i didn't bother looking very hard - it simply isn't that important to me) are instances of spirits having or using skills, with the exception of the mention of sorcery skill under powers of free spirits, where it states that the spirit uses the skill exactly like any other magician then proceedes to contradict itself and say how it is different. there is also no mention i see of skills retained by an ally that goes free. there is however, mention of allies having the powers they were given by their summoner. this would seem to contradict the point of sorcery at spirit energy or 1. there is also the point of spirits learning spells. it is stated that they do not need spell formulae or teachers, because they are always in tune with the magical forces around them. they do however need to spend karma. but an ally needs the conjurer, since it can't spend karma by itself. there is also no mention of needing the magician to know spells to give the ally at creation, merely that the ally must have the sorcery power. personally, i see it as a big mess, but one where a conjurer could have sorcery and a spirit could use it. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 29 2005, 10:11 PM
Post
#35
|
|
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
This is all nice, guys, but you're missing something.
Aspected and Adepts *can* use sorcery; it's just that for them it only acts as an Astral Combat skill. Since they can use it, they can thus learn it. You're getting caught up in the minutae, of what precedent has been set and what-have-you. The answer isn't quite that obscure, guys. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 29 2005, 10:18 PM
Post
#36
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,748 Joined: 5-July 02 Member No.: 2,935 |
[/edit]
Since, in this specific case, adepts are otherwise forbidden to use Active magical skills, this seems a sound precedent.
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 29 2005, 11:05 PM
Post
#37
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 351 Joined: 17-February 05 Member No.: 7,093 |
hmmm. I don't like the implications. If Conjurers are allowed to learn sorcery, even if only for Astral Combat, they could pass the skill on to their Ally Spirits, then learn a whole wack of spells for their Ally Spirits (using a Sorcery skill that's supposedly only Astral Combat knowledge), then using thier Allies to cast spells that otherwise they themselves would never be able to use, AND get a sentient power focus in the deal. Sorcerors don't even have access to this much possible give. It unbalances things quite a bit, unless the Astral Combat Specialization is ALL they could learn, effectively becoming a seperate skill from the rest of Sorcery for them. That would circumvent this problem nicely. But, alas, I'm sure this is the province of houserules and pipe dreams.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 29 2005, 11:23 PM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,748 Joined: 5-July 02 Member No.: 2,935 |
Even with Sorcery (Astral Combat), a conjurer cannot learn a spell, because that requires a Sorcery test (an active use of Sorcery that is not subject to a specific exception in the rules)
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 30 2005, 01:15 AM
Post
#39
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,512 Joined: 16-August 03 From: Northampton Member No.: 5,499 |
Ok i skipped a lot on this page thus it might of been mentioned. I f it has it wa Prob AH.
Anyway. Question, if a burnout's skills become knwoledge skills, how can they cast spells when they make a pacted with Gaff since all they know is jusy theoritcal stuff?? just a thought |
|
|
|
|
Jul 30 2005, 01:38 AM
Post
#40
|
|||||||
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
Implication is infered by the reader and I do not infer so.
Since this is so, a conjuror(a character) can learn any number of base skills(which includes conjuring). Explicit enough for you? It is explicit enough for me. As to whether your precedent stands, since MITS is a rules explansion for the Magic section, and in reference to the burnout section in MITS (p30 MITS), the conversion is not stated. Again I would allow the conversion by virtue that it is stated in SR3 but the omission raises the question of whether unusable Active skills are in effect Background skills. Again I raise the question of regaining ability after it is lost (Aleph Society, Threats 2) and the conclusion that previously unusable ability may have future use.
Nowhere does it state that the performance skill is an Active skill. Indeed, on p65 and p66 SOTA 2064, under Enthrallling Performance and Improved Ability(Expanded) Table, there are references to Artistic/Performance Knowledge Skill and repeated reference to the appropriate performance skills as knowledge skills. The performance skill is a Knowledge skill, not an Active one as you argue. Nowhere is there any reference to performance skill as Active. Dancing, Oration, Singing are performance Knowledge Skills and there is as yet no canon Dancing, Oration or Singing performance Active Skills. You might infer that there might be canon and add it in of your own volition but it does not appear on any canon list of Active skills. House Rule away if you wish, but it is not canon. The blind and crippled man should be able to learn the skill. It is within his reach, so to speak. You whole argument against the conjuror learning the skill lies on his not being able to use it. I am using this example to prove that despite someone might be unable to use a skill, it is not impossible that he can learn it. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jul 30 2005, 01:51 AM
Post
#41
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,748 Joined: 5-July 02 Member No.: 2,935 |
Well, if a complete burn-out undergoes the pact/initiation and regains a single point of magic power, the following may occur: 1) A Kind GM would reason that the knowledge only became theoretical when they couldn't use it, so now that they can it's practical again. 2) A Stickler GM would reason that the burnout would need to spend karma and re-purchase their magical skills. Which might work out well anyways, as they'd have to relearn how to use magic. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 30 2005, 01:57 AM
Post
#42
|
|
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
Or the GM might not have allowed the conversion in the first place, since MITS did not include the conversion for burnouts.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 30 2005, 02:14 AM
Post
#43
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,748 Joined: 5-July 02 Member No.: 2,935 |
We're speaking theoretically of the Aleph Society in Threats II, toturi. I doubt any player character would be allowed the opportunity to recover from burnout in that fashion, but its still a valid case to consider.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 30 2005, 02:36 AM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
I know, boss. I already included that in my examples in the argument against Sharaloth. Theorectically, because the player knows about Aleph and because of the omission of the conversion in MITS (as a GM, I might be persuaded by such an argument), I am saying that the player might opt to NOT convert his magic active into magic background.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 30 2005, 02:47 AM
Post
#45
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,748 Joined: 5-July 02 Member No.: 2,935 |
A reasonable ruling, although strict interpretation would suggest the player must convert - characters with Magic attributes of 0 not supposed to have Magic skills like Centering, Conjuring, Divining, Enchanting or Sorcery at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 30 2005, 03:39 AM
Post
#46
|
|||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 351 Joined: 17-February 05 Member No.: 7,093 |
This discussion has long passed into the halls of the academic, but let's continue anyways.
Implication in this case is inferred through use of logic. should you choose not to use logic in your thought processes, that's your business, but it doesn't make you right.
Yes, Conjurers can learn Conjuring. That was the entire point. I'm going to assume you meant Sorcery, and say this: If so, a mundane can learn Conjuring and Sorcery, since a character can learn any number of base skills, right? Nope, sorry, they're disallowed on the basis of Magic 0. So I guess that this 'any number' business just means you're not limited to, say 5 base skills to put your skill points into, and that you could spread your starting skill points out like a thin paste over every skill available to them if you so choose. This quote says nothing, and you should have realized that.
Which doesn't, of course, mean the conversion doesn't exist, it's just not stated in MitS. A lot of things aren't stated in MitS that are stated in SR3. Gee, spell targeting, basic spell defense, basic conjuring and all the base spirit types aren't spelled out in MitS, I guess that means they don't exist any more either! This point is invalid, the expansions do not counteract the core book by omission.
If you look closely, I discussed this point at length, and conceded it to your side of the argument with the caveat that it's really riding the ragged edge of interpretation. Why are you still arguing it?
I'm sorry, Toturi, but you just don't seem to get it. We ARE NOT trying to figure out how such a person could use a skill, the basic premis of the argument is that he cannot. What you are attacking is not the argument Dawnshadow made, but some straw man off in the corner. Every attempt you have made to address this point has seen you giving this person access to some way to use the skill, so that he may practice and learn it. That is not the argument, that is something completely different. This person, and I'm repeating myself to the point of rediculousness here, CAN NOT USE THIS SKILL in any way shape or form or through any metaplanar, matrix-related or other method, it simply is not possible for him. How, under these circumstances is he to EVER learn that skill? Remember that to learn the skill properly and not in some theoretical (IE knowledge Skill) sense he must be able to practice it. Answer this and you will earn your title, just don't come up with straw like UV Hosts or Metaplanes, actually address the argument as given. You say he should anyway, despite being completely unable to practice this skill: HOW? |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Jul 30 2005, 04:27 AM
Post
#47
|
|||
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
I am not going to assume my interpretation of the rules is the only logical one. But I am also not going to accept any inference(logical or not) that you are going to make that is not explicit in the rules. Because despite your logic, your inference might prove to be false. I prefer not to infer anything not in the rules, because I am not the author and do not persume to know the mind of the author.
Precisely so. The conjuror can learn Sorcery because his Magic is one or greater. The quote in MITS is almost identical to that of SR3. I could logically infer that the authors deliberately left out that single sentence, but I will refrain from doing so, if you would stop infering something that is not explicitly stated in the book. In the blind man example, I do not know how he can use the skill or how he can practise it. But I do know that he may learn it. All the book requires for someone to have a skill is for the player to allocate some skill points to that skill or to get it using karma, provided that the requirements are met. Perhaps the blind man had inborn intuitive knowledge of the active skill that he cannot use. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 30 2005, 02:09 PM
Post
#48
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086 |
And how many GM's would smack the player with a stack of corebooks for that one? (the blind, deaf, quadriplegic learning or improving (as opposed to starting with, which could mean has pistols before he broke his neck and had the nerve centres for his eyes and ears removed) pistols)
I know this player would smack himself for it. We don't use strict training rules as printed in the book for most skills. We do, on the other hand, get asked 'How?' for unusual skills. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 30 2005, 02:43 PM
Post
#49
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,748 Joined: 5-July 02 Member No.: 2,935 |
Instruction chips?
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 30 2005, 04:35 PM
Post
#50
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 188 Joined: 16-June 03 From: Da Burgh, PA Member No.: 4,751 |
Brings up an interesting point. Could you teach your ally things you _know_ through skillsofts? I really hate the idea that an ally spirit is an astral clone of the summoner up until the point that it becomes a free spirit. Sure, its a clone with different experiences resulting in new attitudes, but I've always thought of ally spirits as reflections of the greater magic outside the magician. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 6th May 2026 - 11:30 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.