Zazen,
I would walk away from the table and never look back. In SR your personal gear is always considered indestructable unless that piece of equipment is specifically targeted with a called shot. This is the price you pay for a generalized damage system.
Doing it any other way is a completely hose job to the players.....especially if you only use it for fetishes and not for things like the amunition that the Street-Sam is carrying too.....
-Polaris
Full Version: Astral Projection
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
| I would walk away from the table and never look back. In SR your personal gear is always considered indestructable unless that piece of equipment is specifically targeted with a called shot. This is the price you pay for a generalized damage system. |
What in the names of all the gods gives you that idea?
Read the descriptions of the elemental manipulations some time.
John,
Simple enough.
1. The elemental manipulations are special cases.
2. Even then the description goes out of it's way to say that it may damage the target in various ways with it's secondary effects. It does not say that it does.
Also in the case of fire and acid:
1. It does not keep you from using the hollowed out tooth.
2. If the fetish is worn in the INSIDE of the armor (like I have already suggested), then there will be no damage. [Not exposed to the acid and it takes oxygen to make something burn.]
3. This is clearly a hose job to punish a character that has items the DM doesn't like....that is especially true if the secondary effects were directed at fetishes rather than weapons and other gear.
Finally, I point out that elemental manips are exceedingly *rare* spells against most living targets (like runners). I find that elemental manips are used almost exclusively against vehicals or other devices.
Why? Because against people, elemental manips suck (at least when compared with power bolt or mana bolt). I could go into detail why, but that isn't the point now is it?
-Polaris
Simple enough.
1. The elemental manipulations are special cases.
2. Even then the description goes out of it's way to say that it may damage the target in various ways with it's secondary effects. It does not say that it does.
Also in the case of fire and acid:
1. It does not keep you from using the hollowed out tooth.
2. If the fetish is worn in the INSIDE of the armor (like I have already suggested), then there will be no damage. [Not exposed to the acid and it takes oxygen to make something burn.]
3. This is clearly a hose job to punish a character that has items the DM doesn't like....that is especially true if the secondary effects were directed at fetishes rather than weapons and other gear.
Finally, I point out that elemental manips are exceedingly *rare* spells against most living targets (like runners). I find that elemental manips are used almost exclusively against vehicals or other devices.
Why? Because against people, elemental manips suck (at least when compared with power bolt or mana bolt). I could go into detail why, but that isn't the point now is it?
-Polaris
they've got their uses, stable TN being one of them--against an unknown target, especially one that's obviously a significant threat ('named characters' as opposed to 'goons', to put it in Feng Shui terms), i'm not sure i'd want to risk my first spell splashing against his unexpected 6 will. once i've tagged him with an L or M to slow him down, or if i've got him surprised, then combat spells become the shizzle with the fizzle.
Mfb,
The problem even then is that a manaspell (like a manabolt) is still almost always better.
1. Elemental Manips do indeed have a stable target number. Unfortunately, they have a very bad drain code. That means that if you toss a moderate fireball, you will have to absorb deadly drain at +1 drain code to boot.
That alone makes elemental manips subpar at best.
2. They use sorcery as a ranged combat skill. That ladies and gentlemen means that the target can dodge and avoid damage. Even worse it means you can not use spell pool to help you but must use combat pool instead....which negates one of the primary advantages of being a mage (i.e. you only need combat pool to dodge yourself).
3. The secondary effects are unlikely to harm fetishes anyway. Fetishes can be made from the same things that foci can and there is no rule that says that foci can not be made from any normal object....even manufactored objects such as plastics (for example).
That means that your base object resistance for any focus (or armor/weapons for that matter) will be 8-10. Futhermore, unless the mage is totally insane, you will see a base damage code of serious at worst (see my prior point about drain). That will add two to the base object resistance. If it is an elemental area effect spell, then you will see moderate pretty much at worst and that adds four to the object resistance.
Considering that you have to beat the object resistance with 2d6, that means you will pretty much never affect foci or fetishes.
-Polaris
The problem even then is that a manaspell (like a manabolt) is still almost always better.
1. Elemental Manips do indeed have a stable target number. Unfortunately, they have a very bad drain code. That means that if you toss a moderate fireball, you will have to absorb deadly drain at +1 drain code to boot.
That alone makes elemental manips subpar at best.
2. They use sorcery as a ranged combat skill. That ladies and gentlemen means that the target can dodge and avoid damage. Even worse it means you can not use spell pool to help you but must use combat pool instead....which negates one of the primary advantages of being a mage (i.e. you only need combat pool to dodge yourself).
3. The secondary effects are unlikely to harm fetishes anyway. Fetishes can be made from the same things that foci can and there is no rule that says that foci can not be made from any normal object....even manufactored objects such as plastics (for example).
That means that your base object resistance for any focus (or armor/weapons for that matter) will be 8-10. Futhermore, unless the mage is totally insane, you will see a base damage code of serious at worst (see my prior point about drain). That will add two to the base object resistance. If it is an elemental area effect spell, then you will see moderate pretty much at worst and that adds four to the object resistance.
Considering that you have to beat the object resistance with 2d6, that means you will pretty much never affect foci or fetishes.
-Polaris
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
| Even worse it means you can not use spell pool to help you but must use combat pool instead.... |
Can you point out where it states this major exception to the magic rules in canon?
Fortune,
Edit: Good catch, I just looked it up and stand corrected. You can in fact add spell pool to elemental manips.
That said it ought to be disallowed. Why? Because according to the referenced rule, you can also (by implication) also add combat pool as well. Being able to add *both* combat pool and spell pool to a spell is broken....even with the other disadvantages that elemental manips have. [I will definately remember this though for my mage
]
That said, it doesn't diminish my point vis a vis fetishes at all. They are virtually impossible to hurt with the secondary effects regardless if the Mage has any sense at all.
-Polaris
Edit: Good catch, I just looked it up and stand corrected. You can in fact add spell pool to elemental manips.
That said it ought to be disallowed. Why? Because according to the referenced rule, you can also (by implication) also add combat pool as well. Being able to add *both* combat pool and spell pool to a spell is broken....even with the other disadvantages that elemental manips have. [I will definately remember this though for my mage
]That said, it doesn't diminish my point vis a vis fetishes at all. They are virtually impossible to hurt with the secondary effects regardless if the Mage has any sense at all.
-Polaris
There is no problem with adding dice from more than one Pool to a test. You still have to abide by the general rule for all Pools in regards to the total number of dice not exceeding the skill involved. I have asked Rob Boyle this specific question in the past, and that was his response.
Fortune, that's on the FAQ now too. All pools combined can not add any more dice total than the base skill.
Guys,
Thanks for the clarification. It was my understanding that the limit on pool dice applied per pool. Alight then, all that simply does is negate my second reason why elemental manip spells are poor choices against a living opponent. That said, the rest of my points stand I think.
-Polaris
Thanks for the clarification. It was my understanding that the limit on pool dice applied per pool. Alight then, all that simply does is negate my second reason why elemental manip spells are poor choices against a living opponent. That said, the rest of my points stand I think.
-Polaris
I've never had a GM who suggested Combat Pool could be added to the casting of a manipulation spell. The book (SR3 p. 183) implies that the caster may add Spell Pool, and says nothing about Combat Pool. I think its a misinterpretation of the rules to apply Combat Pool to the casting of Manipulation Spells.
After any eligible magician has had their chance to roll Spell Defense, the Target of the manipulation spell receives it like a ranged combat attack. The Target may use Combat Pool in his/her Dodge Test and his/her Damage Resistance Test.
After any eligible magician has had their chance to roll Spell Defense, the Target of the manipulation spell receives it like a ranged combat attack. The Target may use Combat Pool in his/her Dodge Test and his/her Damage Resistance Test.
OurTeam,
The implication is somewhat subtle but it is there. Under elemental manipulations, it specifices that the sorcery skill is treated as a ranged combat skill and further references you to page 109 (at least in my book) for those rules. Under those referenced rules, you can indeed add combat pool to your ranged attack skill.
However, if the total pool dice can not exceed your skill, that is less of a problem.
-Polaris
The implication is somewhat subtle but it is there. Under elemental manipulations, it specifices that the sorcery skill is treated as a ranged combat skill and further references you to page 109 (at least in my book) for those rules. Under those referenced rules, you can indeed add combat pool to your ranged attack skill.
However, if the total pool dice can not exceed your skill, that is less of a problem.
-Polaris
Damaging manipulation spells have a higher Drain than combat spells, and tend to be less effective. However, like any other part of a mage's arsenal, they have their uses. They have elemental secondary effects, they can hit visually hidden opponents, they must be staged down (by comparison, if you cast a deadly manabolt and get 5 successes, and so does your Target, nothing happens), and they have a set TN of 4 - which is nice when you're facing that albino gnome.
Glyph,
I have actually found that you are more likely to take out the opposition with a power-bolt or mana-bolt than you are with an elemental manipulation.
Why? Because the target has to make a resistance check against the force of your spell and nothing (except astral barriers and shielding) acts to reduce this target number. That means if you are throwing that mojo at force 6 (or force 8 ), that target is highly unlikely to get more than one or two successes....even the abino gnome is unlikely to do so.
*THAT* in turn means that a deadly manabolt or powerbolt will usually suceed at least one time in two (against mages) and often 95% of the time or more against mundane targets.
OTOH, an elemental manipulation spell can be reduced by armor and the target can dodge. Dodging of course has a target number of 4 (which is much lower than the force of the spell usually). In addition, the target gets an additional resistance check and armor does help (half impact in fact) against it.
Thus a force 6 fire-bolt against a mage with an armor spell of 6 (not so unusual) and two points of normal impact armor will take 4 off the target number to resist with body....after dodging.
This is almost always a TN of 2 which means the spell is pretty damned ineffective.
Elemental Manips have their place....especially against Vehicals which can not be targeted by mana spells and are highly resistant to Physical combat spells. However against enemy personelle, they suck.
-Polaris
I have actually found that you are more likely to take out the opposition with a power-bolt or mana-bolt than you are with an elemental manipulation.
Why? Because the target has to make a resistance check against the force of your spell and nothing (except astral barriers and shielding) acts to reduce this target number. That means if you are throwing that mojo at force 6 (or force 8 ), that target is highly unlikely to get more than one or two successes....even the abino gnome is unlikely to do so.
*THAT* in turn means that a deadly manabolt or powerbolt will usually suceed at least one time in two (against mages) and often 95% of the time or more against mundane targets.
OTOH, an elemental manipulation spell can be reduced by armor and the target can dodge. Dodging of course has a target number of 4 (which is much lower than the force of the spell usually). In addition, the target gets an additional resistance check and armor does help (half impact in fact) against it.
Thus a force 6 fire-bolt against a mage with an armor spell of 6 (not so unusual) and two points of normal impact armor will take 4 off the target number to resist with body....after dodging.
This is almost always a TN of 2 which means the spell is pretty damned ineffective.
Elemental Manips have their place....especially against Vehicals which can not be targeted by mana spells and are highly resistant to Physical combat spells. However against enemy personelle, they suck.
-Polaris
So you hit them with a Deadly Force 1 Flamethrower (or your favourite manipulation), which yields a 4 to resist drain if I'm doing my math correctly (spellslinging ain't my strong point) and will do a fair amount of hurt to your typical magery-type. A Fireball would be doable with a 6 to resist drain, and eliminates the dodging problem.
Not great, no, but not useless I'd be inclined to say.
~J
Not great, no, but not useless I'd be inclined to say.
~J
Kagetenshi,
Actually a force 1 deadly elemental manip would have a drain target number of 3 (1/2 round down +1+2 for overdrain). Actually this is a clever way to use the spell. Naturally it means that the resistance numbers will always be two as well.
In addition to all of that, spell defense dice will actually cut through this spell like butter which weakens it further.
Finally, you can only toss as many dice into your force 1 flamethrower as you could into your force 6 manabolt. For a starting character that is usually twelve dice. Considering that the target can dodge and has a TN of 2 on the damage resistance, that bites. It bites even more when you consider that you must resist a higher drain code than your target does....and you don't have as many dice to help you.....
Getting back to the topic......
Even if you do manage to damage the mage, you will still not damage the fetishes in all likelyhood even if they are worn out in the open. If they are worn under armor, then they are essentially immune from even the strongest elemental manips.
-Polaris
Actually a force 1 deadly elemental manip would have a drain target number of 3 (1/2 round down +1+2 for overdrain). Actually this is a clever way to use the spell. Naturally it means that the resistance numbers will always be two as well.
In addition to all of that, spell defense dice will actually cut through this spell like butter which weakens it further.
Finally, you can only toss as many dice into your force 1 flamethrower as you could into your force 6 manabolt. For a starting character that is usually twelve dice. Considering that the target can dodge and has a TN of 2 on the damage resistance, that bites. It bites even more when you consider that you must resist a higher drain code than your target does....and you don't have as many dice to help you.....
Getting back to the topic......
Even if you do manage to damage the mage, you will still not damage the fetishes in all likelyhood even if they are worn out in the open. If they are worn under armor, then they are essentially immune from even the strongest elemental manips.
-Polaris
Hell, cast it at Force 3. Drain power for a 3D Flamethrower is still only 4D. Casting it at D eliminates the penalty involved in affecting inanimate objects, which means that even manufactured high-tech objects will be affected almost half of the time. If the object is especially vulnerable to the element (electronics being hit by Lightning Bolt, for a canon example), they get a -1 to their OR, too, which improves the odds for even manufactured high-tech objects to better than 50/50 if you pick an appropriate spell.
Fetishes are unlikely to be manufactured high-tech objects, anyway. Such things make poor magical materials. That's why they're so difficult to affect to begin with...
And I don't consider destroying equipment with elemental manipulations to be picking on the players. As a player, I expect that the GM will apply the secondary effects of my elemental attacks to NPCs' equipment... that's most of the reason I even bother casting them. As Polaris so brilliantly points out, they're not really worth their hefty Drain otherwise. That being the case, I'd be nothing more than a hypocritical whiner if I complained about NPC elemental manipulations damaging my PC's equipment as per the rules.
I haven't complained when my equipment's been damaged by explosions or other excessive applications of brute force, either. That's common sense, though, and not explicitly outlined in the rules, so I couldn't expect munchkin rules lawyers to understand my position on that...
Fetishes are unlikely to be manufactured high-tech objects, anyway. Such things make poor magical materials. That's why they're so difficult to affect to begin with...
And I don't consider destroying equipment with elemental manipulations to be picking on the players. As a player, I expect that the GM will apply the secondary effects of my elemental attacks to NPCs' equipment... that's most of the reason I even bother casting them. As Polaris so brilliantly points out, they're not really worth their hefty Drain otherwise. That being the case, I'd be nothing more than a hypocritical whiner if I complained about NPC elemental manipulations damaging my PC's equipment as per the rules.
I haven't complained when my equipment's been damaged by explosions or other excessive applications of brute force, either. That's common sense, though, and not explicitly outlined in the rules, so I couldn't expect munchkin rules lawyers to understand my position on that...
John,
Incorrect. There is no rule that says that fetishes have to be 'natural' objects. In fact the rules state quite clearly that fetishes can be made of the same things that foci can....and foci can be any object...including highly processed items.
In addition to that, you do not automatically get to affect all the items on a person with an elemental manip. They have to be able to *be* effected first (read the section on elemental manips if you doubt me). Thus a fetish made of processed ceramic worn in the inside of a coat would simply be immune from elemental manips. Ceramic does not burn so fire is out (it says so in the description). It is worn in the inside of the armor, so acid is out (and ceramic is immune to acid anyway). Finally ceramic is an insulator so electricity is out.
My point is that the rules have to apply equally to everyone or no one, and if the GM made the rule vs fetishes and not a Sam's gun and ammo, then I would feel quite right in walking out.
-Polaris
Incorrect. There is no rule that says that fetishes have to be 'natural' objects. In fact the rules state quite clearly that fetishes can be made of the same things that foci can....and foci can be any object...including highly processed items.
In addition to that, you do not automatically get to affect all the items on a person with an elemental manip. They have to be able to *be* effected first (read the section on elemental manips if you doubt me). Thus a fetish made of processed ceramic worn in the inside of a coat would simply be immune from elemental manips. Ceramic does not burn so fire is out (it says so in the description). It is worn in the inside of the armor, so acid is out (and ceramic is immune to acid anyway). Finally ceramic is an insulator so electricity is out.
My point is that the rules have to apply equally to everyone or no one, and if the GM made the rule vs fetishes and not a Sam's gun and ammo, then I would feel quite right in walking out.
-Polaris
Hmm, I didn't find what I was looking for so I'll ask all the wise people gathered here.
It says that an Astrally Projecting mage can only affect Astrally Active beings with Mana spells. Now,what happens if said projecting mage sneaks through a wall, finds a group of "goons" and throws a FIREBALL at them? Will the spell just fizzle because it is not a MANA spell or would it affect all the living beings in the room BECAUSE it is a PHYSICAL spell? The drain would be horrible and physical so that would justify the above effect but how unbalancing would it be?
I can't find anything in the rule preventing the mage from actually casting the spell, but what would happen? Would only the astrally active beings in the room be affected or would the actual fire also hurt everyone else? Would secondary effects apply?
Me confused.
It says that an Astrally Projecting mage can only affect Astrally Active beings with Mana spells. Now,what happens if said projecting mage sneaks through a wall, finds a group of "goons" and throws a FIREBALL at them? Will the spell just fizzle because it is not a MANA spell or would it affect all the living beings in the room BECAUSE it is a PHYSICAL spell? The drain would be horrible and physical so that would justify the above effect but how unbalancing would it be?
I can't find anything in the rule preventing the mage from actually casting the spell, but what would happen? Would only the astrally active beings in the room be affected or would the actual fire also hurt everyone else? Would secondary effects apply?
Me confused.
Read page 182, the last paragraph under Astral Spellcasting. Your answer is there.
Sphynx
Sphynx
WILCO. 
What book? MITS or BBB?
What book? MITS or BBB?
BBB
Sphynx
Sphynx
I missed this earlier...
| QUOTE |
| Polaris Said: In SR your personal gear is always considered indestructable unless that piece of equipment is specifically targeted with a called shot |
Egads man... that's insane IMHO. Everything you carry is equipment, just like the door you kick down and the window you shoot through, it is not magically indestructable and I really can't fathom the logic of why you would think it is. People in my games do not get terribly attached to their equipment because after all it is nothing more than a set of tools used to do the job, which can be replaced.
I'm not going to say that this is common, but it definitely happens.
Remember who you're talking to Bit.
-Siege
-Siege
I know, I just... can't fathom that.
In my game you are not safe, your equipment is not safe, aour apartment is definitely not 100% safe.
Your bank account is pretty safe but people still split amongst multiple legitimate and shadow banks to protect their assets from malicious hackers.
Riggers lose vehicles and drones. I had a rigger without any vehicles for a real life year in a game, and he stuck it out until things got better. Hew was a pretty competent sammy when he eventually got a ride again. His vehicles didnt get lost because of being destroyed, but because he came in debt to organized crime and used them to call it even.
People make enemies, its not unheard of to have your house ransacked and crap stolen. No matted how cool you think your defenses are, remember... YOU are the people hired explicitly to beat those defenses and there's always someone better than you.
I don't see ANYTHING in this game as a constant, or a shelter in the storm which you can cling. An enemy that is competent enough and can do enough research will find out about your weaknesses and exploit them. Thinkgs like fetish requirements is a weakness.
I don't see this thing happen often, but when it does happen it's going to happen when you absolutely needed it the most. When the feces really hits the rotating oscillator.
I guess maybe I'm just really a bastard GM but my players really, REALLY don't take any of this for granted. They live their little lives waiting for the other shoe to drop. Nothing, not friends, family, gear, being awakened, or their own life is 100% constant or dependable.
That's probably why my people never use fetishes. Because someday it's not going to be there, and they better hope to god that it's not a life or death scenario when that happens.
In my game you are not safe, your equipment is not safe, aour apartment is definitely not 100% safe.
Your bank account is pretty safe but people still split amongst multiple legitimate and shadow banks to protect their assets from malicious hackers.
Riggers lose vehicles and drones. I had a rigger without any vehicles for a real life year in a game, and he stuck it out until things got better. Hew was a pretty competent sammy when he eventually got a ride again. His vehicles didnt get lost because of being destroyed, but because he came in debt to organized crime and used them to call it even.
People make enemies, its not unheard of to have your house ransacked and crap stolen. No matted how cool you think your defenses are, remember... YOU are the people hired explicitly to beat those defenses and there's always someone better than you.
I don't see ANYTHING in this game as a constant, or a shelter in the storm which you can cling. An enemy that is competent enough and can do enough research will find out about your weaknesses and exploit them. Thinkgs like fetish requirements is a weakness.
I don't see this thing happen often, but when it does happen it's going to happen when you absolutely needed it the most. When the feces really hits the rotating oscillator.
I guess maybe I'm just really a bastard GM but my players really, REALLY don't take any of this for granted. They live their little lives waiting for the other shoe to drop. Nothing, not friends, family, gear, being awakened, or their own life is 100% constant or dependable.
That's probably why my people never use fetishes. Because someday it's not going to be there, and they better hope to god that it's not a life or death scenario when that happens.
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
| Elemental Manips have their place....especially against Vehicals which can not be targeted by mana spells and are highly resistant to Physical combat spells. However against enemy personelle, they suck. |
Well sure, if all enemy personelle is comprised of mages with force 6 armor spells though I gather that you were only referring to the aforementioned mage, not other opposition). Against corp sec guards, gangers, etc. they can be quite handy. Yes they can be dodged, but guess what? Dodging eats up your combat pool. I call that a win/win situation. Would I use an elemental manipulation on a mage (or mages) with armor spells up? No. Would I use a powerball on a group of trolls? No. I would use the appropriate spell for the appropriate situation.
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
Incorrect. There is no rule that says that fetishes have to be 'natural' objects. In fact the rules state quite clearly that fetishes can be made of the same things that foci can....and foci can be any object...including highly processed items. |
Very true, fetishes CAN be made out of anything. So what if you are playing a nature loving shaman? Does common sense fall before the might of game mechanics? Or does the shaman have fetishes made out of bits of feather and such? Would you agree that from a role playing standpoint, not all magic users will have highly processed fetishes?
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
| Ceramic does not burn so fire is out (it says so in the description). It is worn in the inside of the armor, so acid is out (and ceramic is immune to acid anyway). Finally ceramic is an insulator so electricity is out. |
Umm, if the armor is insulated (via the rules in CC I think), then yes you get these benefits. Otherwise (according to canon), secondary fire effects can affect armor, whether it's made out of plastic, ceramic, or candy corn.
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
My point is that the rules have to apply equally to everyone or no one, and if the GM made the rule vs fetishes and not a Sam's gun and ammo, then I would feel quite right in walking out. -Polaris |
The rules do apply equally, aren't there rules for cooking off ammo with secondary manipulation effects? Also, a fetish limited spell is just that, LIMITED. If your GM doesn't enforce that, then s/he is doing you a disservice, IMHO. Yes, a samurai's gun requires ammo, as does your fetish limited spell. That ammo can be used up, stolen, or destroyed.
As far as walking out on the game, that's a bit extreme, but not necessarily unwarranted. I would first talk to the GM and try to reason with them about it. If I wasn't having fun with that gaming group, I'd stop wasting my time there.
Bitbasher,
With very specific exceptions, your personal gear has to be considered sacrosant for the same reason your personal gear in DnD is considered sacrosant.
If it isn't, you then open up the possibility of "hit locations", and part of the called shot mess resulted from trying to wedd hit-locations onto a combat system that assumes generalized damage.
Besides, as I rather pointedly showed in the case of fetishes, if you get the right kind of fetish (material) and you wear it tactically (inside a hollowed tooth or inside your clothing/armor), then it really is pretty much indestructable.
BTW, I also always buy back-up fetishes. Yes, it takes time to rebond, but at least you have them. After all accidents do happen (gear can be lost).
Really, this is just common sense if you have any experience with generalized damage systems at all.
-Polaris
With very specific exceptions, your personal gear has to be considered sacrosant for the same reason your personal gear in DnD is considered sacrosant.
If it isn't, you then open up the possibility of "hit locations", and part of the called shot mess resulted from trying to wedd hit-locations onto a combat system that assumes generalized damage.
Besides, as I rather pointedly showed in the case of fetishes, if you get the right kind of fetish (material) and you wear it tactically (inside a hollowed tooth or inside your clothing/armor), then it really is pretty much indestructable.
BTW, I also always buy back-up fetishes. Yes, it takes time to rebond, but at least you have them. After all accidents do happen (gear can be lost).
Really, this is just common sense if you have any experience with generalized damage systems at all.
-Polaris
Icycool,
First of all, as a shaman, I would start with natural materials. However after the GM tossed a spell like this at me just once for the express purpose of stripping my of my fetishes, then I would get them made of ceramic.
Moral: If you want your players to roleplay, then do not punish them for doing so. Otherwise you *will* get results you don't like.
As for the rest, I just reread the elemental manipulation section including the respective spells in the BBB and you are not completely correct. The item in question has to be a valid target for the secondary effect to work. That means that the item has to be able to be affected by the element.
Any item that is not flammable, is immune from the secondary effects of flame bolt (ball).
Any item that is not metallic and/or organic is immune from the secondary effects of acid bolt (toxic wave).
Any item that is not flamable and/or conducts electricity is immune from the secondary effects of lightning bolt (ball).
Thus fetishes made of ceramic especially if worn inside the armor are immune from elemental maniupulations. This may torque off a shaman to use them, but I suspect that most Hermetics would have no qualms about using ceramic fetishes given this fact.
-Polaris
First of all, as a shaman, I would start with natural materials. However after the GM tossed a spell like this at me just once for the express purpose of stripping my of my fetishes, then I would get them made of ceramic.
Moral: If you want your players to roleplay, then do not punish them for doing so. Otherwise you *will* get results you don't like.
As for the rest, I just reread the elemental manipulation section including the respective spells in the BBB and you are not completely correct. The item in question has to be a valid target for the secondary effect to work. That means that the item has to be able to be affected by the element.
Any item that is not flammable, is immune from the secondary effects of flame bolt (ball).
Any item that is not metallic and/or organic is immune from the secondary effects of acid bolt (toxic wave).
Any item that is not flamable and/or conducts electricity is immune from the secondary effects of lightning bolt (ball).
Thus fetishes made of ceramic especially if worn inside the armor are immune from elemental maniupulations. This may torque off a shaman to use them, but I suspect that most Hermetics would have no qualms about using ceramic fetishes given this fact.
-Polaris
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
| Icycool, First of all, as a shaman, I would start with natural materials. However after the GM tossed a spell like this at me just once for the express purpose of stripping my of my fetishes, then I would get them made of ceramic. |
So when the GM enforces a drawback that YOU CHOSE, you'd stop role playing?
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
| Moral: If you want your players to roleplay, then do not punish them for doing so. Otherwise you *will* get results you don't like. |
I have no intention of doing so. In fact, if I don't take advantage of their weaknesses from time to time, then I am doing them a disservice. Otherwise, why did they take them? If they took them from a role playing perspective, the'll expect it to happen. If they took it because they think it's a freebie and the GM can't do anything about it, well, what do you think?
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
| As for the rest, I just reread the elemental manipulation section including the respective spells in the BBB and you are not completely correct. The item in question has to be a valid target for the secondary effect to work. That means that the item has to be able to be affected by the element. Any item that is not flammable, is immune from the secondary effects of flame bolt (ball). Any item that is not metallic and/or organic is immune from the secondary effects of acid bolt (toxic wave). Any item that is not flamable and/or conducts electricity is immune from the secondary effects of lightning bolt (ball). |
I stand corrected. There are two other elemental effects IRC. Blast and Ice. Is ceramic immune to both of them as well? Also, I thought plastic could be affected by acid?
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
Thus fetishes made of ceramic especially if worn inside the armor are immune from elemental maniupulations. This may torque off a shaman to use them, but I suspect that most Hermetics would have no qualms about using ceramic fetishes given this fact. -Polaris |
I don't imagine hermetics would. Depending on the shaman, totem, and fetish, they might.
errr, Polaris, There are rules in DnD last time I played where if you get hit with a fireball or other spell you had to make a save for all your items, magic or not, and they would be destroyed by failing a saving throw for each item. I always used those rules. Very similar system really.
Also the interpretations of what is immune to elemental effects is a tad dense, as the lightrning bolt and fireball generate immense heat that can melt softer metals and damage a lot wider range of things than you imply.
There was a good point made however, and that is the word "Limited" in "Fetish Limited" If the fetish isn't a limit then the GM isn't doing his job. If it's being abused until it is no longer a limit, then I'd probably disallow them entirely. That defeats the entire point of it being a limit, and therefore should grant no benefit. I personally believe the intent of the rules far outweighs the importance of how someone can abuse them.
Also the interpretations of what is immune to elemental effects is a tad dense, as the lightrning bolt and fireball generate immense heat that can melt softer metals and damage a lot wider range of things than you imply.
There was a good point made however, and that is the word "Limited" in "Fetish Limited" If the fetish isn't a limit then the GM isn't doing his job. If it's being abused until it is no longer a limit, then I'd probably disallow them entirely. That defeats the entire point of it being a limit, and therefore should grant no benefit. I personally believe the intent of the rules far outweighs the importance of how someone can abuse them.
Bitbasher,
Actually in DnD you don't unless you roll a natural 1 on your saving throw. Your gear is sacrosant. IIRC that was also the rule in 2E as well.
Also I am not being dense at all. Do you know what they use to carry molten pig iron in?
Answer: Ceramic. Thus I was being quite fair. Also ceramic is immune from acidic effects. Just ask any profesional chemist.
IcyCool,
To your first point, I would argue that I was roleplaying. It is totally in character for a magician to protect his items (fetishes, foci, etc) to the best of his ability. If it turns out that they need to be made of ceramic to do this and worn inside hollowed out teeth (or under armor), then so be it. That is in fact roleplaying.
So you feel that in DnD, you are doing the wizard a disservice if you don't take away his spell book from time to time? If so, then I will accept your disservice
Actually in DnD you don't unless you roll a natural 1 on your saving throw. Your gear is sacrosant. IIRC that was also the rule in 2E as well.
Also I am not being dense at all. Do you know what they use to carry molten pig iron in?
Answer: Ceramic. Thus I was being quite fair. Also ceramic is immune from acidic effects. Just ask any profesional chemist.
IcyCool,
To your first point, I would argue that I was roleplaying. It is totally in character for a magician to protect his items (fetishes, foci, etc) to the best of his ability. If it turns out that they need to be made of ceramic to do this and worn inside hollowed out teeth (or under armor), then so be it. That is in fact roleplaying.
So you feel that in DnD, you are doing the wizard a disservice if you don't take away his spell book from time to time? If so, then I will accept your disservice
| QUOTE |
I stand corrected. There are two other elemental effects IRC. Blast and Ice. Is ceramic immune to both of them as well? Also, I thought plastic could be affected by acid? |
Those ar the only three in the BBB. In MOTS there are steam, thunderbolt, and laser and none of those would affect ceramic either.
As for shamans and fetishes, I guess that would depend on the totem. Eagle would pitch a fit, but I doubt Coyote would care (other than to snicker and praise his shaman for being clever).
-Polaris
P.S. We have gotten very far away from the point. The point is that fetishes have no real disadvantages unless the GM attempts to make some very contrived (and thus unfair) situations to make it one....as the last few points have illustrated. It is about on par with a wizard's spellbook in DnD....it is supposed to be a disadvantage but it really isn't.
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
| Bitbasher, Actually in DnD you don't unless you roll a natural 1 on your saving throw. Your gear is sacrosant. IIRC that was also the rule in 2E as well. |
Actually I don't quite think this is the case. Also, every D&D game I've played in, if you fall, or get smacked with something sizable (like a boulder), my GM's have made me make a save for my potions. This led to me buying metal flasks for all of them. Expensive? Yes. Harder to destroy? Yes. (Note that I didn't say they were impossible.)
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
| IcyCool, To your first point, I would argue that I was roleplaying. It is totally in character for a magician to protect his items (fetishes, foci, etc) to the best of his ability. If it turns out that they need to be made of ceramic to do this and worn inside hollowed out teeth (or under armor), then so be it. That is in fact roleplaying. So you feel that in DnD, you are doing the wizard a disservice if you don't take away his spell book from time to time? If so, then I will accept your disservice |
Yes, I do. Especially with the third edition feat, "Spell Mastery". Also note, time to time does not mean every session. I also use common sense, a rare thing in games nowadays. So your placing your fetishes inside of your clothing/armor, WILL protect them more than their being out in the open. Just as a spellbook inside of a backpack will protect it more than being in the open.
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
Those ar the only three in the BBB. In MOTS there are steam, thunderbolt, and laser and none of those would affect ceramic either. |
I'll have to take a look at my copy of MitS tonight.
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
As for shamans and fetishes, I guess that would depend on the totem. Eagle would pitch a fit, but I doubt Coyote would care (other than to snicker and praise his shaman for being clever). |
True. And I would expect urban totems to have no problem at all with a zippo fetish or such. But in my game, if your totem pitches a fit, you listen, or you find yourself with a sudden inability to use your gifts.
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
P.S. We have gotten very far away from the point. The point is that fetishes have no real disadvantages unless the GM attempts to make some very contrived (and thus unfair) situations to make it one....as the last few points have illustrated. It is about on par with a wizard's spellbook in DnD....it is supposed to be a disadvantage but it really isn't. |
Actually, we've been debating that point. We haven't gotten away from it at all. I would disagree that damaging manipulations are 'contrived' in any way, nor have I seen a contrived situation. What's contrived about someone trying to kill you with a damaging manipulation (that also damages your equipment)? I would say that fetishes aren't quite on par with a wizard's spellbook in DnD, but they are close.
Icycool,
Actually that is the case in DnD. Your equipement is totally unharmed unless you roll a "1" on your saving throw. If you like I can look it up and quote it chapter and verse, but this is an SR board and not a DnD board.
My only point was this: If you target my fetishes/foci, then I will make it hard for an enemy to destroy them and/or take them away. Having said that, I conceed that fetishes (and other gear) can be taken away (if you go back a couple of pages I call this the only 'real' disadvantage), but such 'take away' situations are contrived and you generally have worse things to worry about if captured (for instance) than the loss of your fetishes, believe me.
Thus is it perfectly good RP for a mage or shaman to get damage resistant fetishes and wear them inside of armor or even inside of hollowed out teeth especially if they had been damaged/taken away once. It is called being smart.
As for totems, I quite agree that if you totem pitches a fit, then you had better listen. That is why I generally prefer hermetics. However, coyote would be cool with nearly anything.
Finally, in astral space, you can't use elemental manipulations anyway so at least part of the point is moot.
-Polaris
Actually that is the case in DnD. Your equipement is totally unharmed unless you roll a "1" on your saving throw. If you like I can look it up and quote it chapter and verse, but this is an SR board and not a DnD board.
My only point was this: If you target my fetishes/foci, then I will make it hard for an enemy to destroy them and/or take them away. Having said that, I conceed that fetishes (and other gear) can be taken away (if you go back a couple of pages I call this the only 'real' disadvantage), but such 'take away' situations are contrived and you generally have worse things to worry about if captured (for instance) than the loss of your fetishes, believe me.
Thus is it perfectly good RP for a mage or shaman to get damage resistant fetishes and wear them inside of armor or even inside of hollowed out teeth especially if they had been damaged/taken away once. It is called being smart.
As for totems, I quite agree that if you totem pitches a fit, then you had better listen. That is why I generally prefer hermetics. However, coyote would be cool with nearly anything.
Finally, in astral space, you can't use elemental manipulations anyway so at least part of the point is moot.
-Polaris
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
| Icycool, Actually that is the case in DnD. Your equipement is totally unharmed unless you roll a "1" on your saving throw. If you like I can look it up and quote it chapter and verse, but this is an SR board and not a DnD board. |
The start of this sentence:
| QUOTE (IcyCool) |
| Also, every D&D game I've played in, if you fall, or get smacked with something sizable (like a boulder), |
Should read:
| QUOTE |
| Regardless, every D&D game |
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
My only point was this: If you target my fetishes/foci, then I will make it hard for an enemy to destroy them and/or take them away. Having said that, I conceed that fetishes (and other gear) can be taken away (if you go back a couple of pages I call this the only 'real' disadvantage), but such 'take away' situations are contrived and you generally have worse things to worry about if captured (for instance) than the loss of your fetishes, believe me. |
I disagree that all 'take away' situations are contrived.
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
Thus is it perfectly good RP for a mage or shaman to get damage resistant fetishes and wear them inside of armor or even inside of hollowed out teeth especially if they had been damaged/taken away once. It is called being smart. |
Sure, but it sounds a little paranoid to me. Situations in which their fetishes are in danger are so few and far between, why go to such extreme measures?
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
As for totems, I quite agree that if you totem pitches a fit, then you had better listen. That is why I generally prefer hermetics. However, coyote would be cool with nearly anything. |
I agree, I never argued otherwise.
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
Finally, in astral space, you can't use elemental manipulations anyway so at least part of the point is moot. -Polaris |
Relevance? When were we talking about casting manips on the astral?
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
| Incorrect. There is no rule that says that fetishes have to be 'natural' objects. In fact the rules state quite clearly that fetishes can be made of the same things that foci can....and foci can be any object...including highly processed items. |
Read the rules on making fetishes and foci in MitS. Not all materials are created equal, magically speaking. Yes, it's possible to make foci out of anything... but making them out of highly processed materials is difficult, at best, bordering on bloody near impossible, because you have to add the Object Resistance to the TN for the Enchanting test. It's also likely to eliminate any chance of getting the handmade or virgin telesma bonuses to that TN. That means that for something simple like, say, a Force 1 sustaining focus made out of highly processed materials, you're looking at a base TN of 15+ to enchant the silly thing... and, while there are ways to reduce that TN, they involve adding more alchemical radicals and orichalcum, which greatly increases the time and effort or expense involved in making it. The simple focus-purchasing rules in the core book don't reflect this, but it's something I'd keep in mind if my players were to start asking for foci with really high ORs... especially if they were doing so not so that they could have a focus with a secondary mundane use, but simply so that they could munch out on the TN for it to be affected by spells.
Fetishes, on the other hand, are not made out of just anything. They're made out of alchemically refined materials... and, unlike in foci, the alchemical materials are not optional. There are no alchemical materials that I'd give an OR higher than 5.
| QUOTE |
| In addition to that, you do not automatically get to affect all the items on a person with an elemental manip. They have to be able to *be* effected first (read the section on elemental manips if you doubt me). Thus a fetish made of processed ceramic worn in the inside of a coat would simply be immune from elemental manips. Ceramic does not burn so fire is out (it says so in the description). It is worn in the inside of the armor, so acid is out (and ceramic is immune to acid anyway). Finally ceramic is an insulator so electricity is out. |
Well, leaving aside that there are no rules for alchemically refining highly processed ceramics... you're overrating the resistance of ceramics to abuse. Here in the real world, I've personally blown apart ceramic insulators with electricity. Ceramics make poor conductors of electricity, and they don't burn or melt easily, but they're not immune to the effects of differential thermal expansion... they're fairly vulnerable to it, actually, because they tend to be poor conductors of heat, too. This means that if you heat it up quickly enough and unevenly enough, the heat will not spread evenly through the ceramic, and it'll shatter as the various portions expand at different rates. Lightning bolts should be sufficient to accomplish this... I've done it with current levels available out of a wall socket, myself. Fire spells might work, though I suspect not.
It's also possible to damage ceramics with certain types of acid. Hydrofluoric acid, at least, will corrode ceramics. It's used in the real world for etching ceramic tiles and the like.
| QUOTE |
| My point is that the rules have to apply equally to everyone or no one, and if the GM made the rule vs fetishes and not a Sam's gun and ammo, then I would feel quite right in walking out. |
This is what is known as a "straw man". It's a logical fallacy; go read the link in BitBasher's sig for details. No one but you has suggested that equipment other than fetishes shouldn't be affected by elemental manipulations (or damage from any other source, for that matter), so attacking that position is, at best, irrelevant. You might want to check out "red herring", while you're at it.
| QUOTE |
| Those ar the only three in the BBB. In MOTS there are steam, thunderbolt, and laser and none of those would affect ceramic either. |
The full list is Acid, Blast, Fire, Ice, Light, Lightning, Metal, Sand, Smoke, and Water. Of those, Acid, Blast, Lightning, Metal, and Sand could affect ceramics... Fire might, though I doubt that the heat transfer would be fast enough or uneven enough to cause shattering.
Polaris,
Rather than comment on your indestructible gear theory which has already been pretty well covered, I ask you to consider something else. Your particular game is highly unusual. Rather than calling fetishes "simply too good", say that they are really great in your game. In most games they are fairly well balanced because of the variety of disadvantages covered in this thread, which you obviously do not implement.
Rather than comment on your indestructible gear theory which has already been pretty well covered, I ask you to consider something else. Your particular game is highly unusual. Rather than calling fetishes "simply too good", say that they are really great in your game. In most games they are fairly well balanced because of the variety of disadvantages covered in this thread, which you obviously do not implement.
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
| Actually that is the case in DnD. Your equipement is totally unharmed unless you roll a "1" on your saving throw. If you like I can look it up and quote it chapter and verse, but this is an SR board and not a DnD board. |
I don't recall off-hand the exact rule for D&D3. but I know that this is not the case for any previous editions. All that was required to force Saving Throws for equipment was a failed Saving Throw by the target, not that the target roll a "1" on his save.
Not that it's terribly relevant to Shadowrun But all you had to do in AD&D to scrap your gear was fail a save, you failed? All your gear has to save. Droves, nay scads! nay MOUNTAINS!!! of gear were destroyed in this fashion.
Sunday
But all you had to do in AD&D to scrap your gear was fail a save, you failed? All your gear has to save. Droves, nay scads! nay MOUNTAINS!!! of gear were destroyed in this fashion.Sunday
| QUOTE (Sunday_Gamer) |
| Not that it's terribly relevant to Shadowrun But all you had to do in AD&D to scrap your gear was fail a save, you failed? All your gear has to save. Droves, nay scads! nay MOUNTAINS!!! of gear were destroyed in this fashion. |
Yeah... mages in our games tended to leave their spellbooks in safe places rather than take them into the dungeon and risk getting them fireballed or something. And then there was the campaign where we accidentally got blasted through a rift into another dimension, and the mage's spellbook was still back in the inn, in a different universe, that we had no idea how to get back to. Was a long trek to a civilization where he could get paper and magic inks and suchlike, with him going, "Noo..... can't cast spells. If I cast it, I'll forget it. Must remember it until I can write it down...." the entire way.
Zazen,
Actually my game that I play in goes exactly according to the rules in this. If that makes my game unusual then that says volumes about the current state of shadowrun rules....none of it good.
John,
You are wrong about DnD and you are wrong in general about elemental manips.
On page 177 of the 3.5 PHB it says:
Actually my game that I play in goes exactly according to the rules in this. If that makes my game unusual then that says volumes about the current state of shadowrun rules....none of it good.
John,
You are wrong about DnD and you are wrong in general about elemental manips.
On page 177 of the 3.5 PHB it says:
| QUOTE |
Unless the descriptive text of the spell specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature as assumed to survive a magical attack. If a creature rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against the effect, however, an exposed item is harmed (if the attack can harm objects). |
There it is in black and white. I was right about DnD.
Furthermore I am right about fetishes too. In the BBB page 180 it says:
| QUOTE |
For examples of items used as fetishes, see Foci page 189 |
When we go to page 189 it says:
| QUOTE |
Although talismongers tend to offer fairly traditional foci, any physical object can be enchanted as a focus. |
That means that fetishes (and foci) can have ORs of 10.
OH....but it gets worse. I now direct you to page 189 where it specifically states that Acid eats away at metallic and organic material. It also states further down that those things hit with acid can be so melted...yet if a focus is worn under the armor, it won't be hit by the acid now will it?
Likewise on page 190, we find that fire can only affect flammable materials while lightning only affects flammable and/or conductive materials.
Thus if a fetish is not flammable OR organic OR conductive/electronic OR metallic then it can not be affected by any elemental manip.
Science has no bearing on this since this is magic. [BTW, hydrofluoric acid is unque in it's ability to etch glass. Even 18 molar nitric acid and sodium amide (one of the strongest known bases) are stored in glass. Likewise, while electricty can shatter ceramic, it can only do so if a high amperage current is forced through it to ground. This will never be the case with fetishes worn in the inside of armor. Moral: don't argue about electrical effects with a physicist.]
-Polaris
| QUOTE (Polaris) | ||||
Furthermore I am right about fetishes too. In the BBB page 180 it says:
When we go to page 189 it says:
That means that fetishes (and foci) can have ORs of 10. |
Quite right, they can. John is referring to the section on enchantment in MitS (Magic in the Shadows), pages 39-47, where it states you need refined materials (refined from natural items) to make a Fetish or Focus. This DOESN'T say that the fetish or focus is MADE FROM them. These materials are used to enchant the Telesma (actual item the focus is made from). However, John is correct in that it is much more difficult to make a focus or fetish from highly processed materials.
This debate would be better if you had a copy of MitS Polaris, does your GM or someone in your group have a copy you could borrow?
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
OH....but it gets worse. I now direct you to page 189 where it specifically states that Acid eats away at metallic and organic material. It also states further down that those things hit with acid can be so melted...yet if a focus is worn under the armor, it won't be hit by the acid now will it? |
Depends, is your armor waterproof? And for your edification:
| QUOTE (MitS @ page 52, Acid secondary effects:) |
| Any-thing hit by an acid effect can be melted into sludge, or at least badly pitted and burned. Vehicle tires flatten. Armor can be reduced by -1 to both Ballistic and Impact values by being melted and burned. If the Acid attack was Deadly, even firearms can be corroded into junk. |
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
| Thus if a fetish is not flammable OR organic OR conductive/electronic OR metallic then it can not be affected by any elemental manip. |
Untrue, Acid, Blast, Lightning, Metal, and Sand effects could all harm a non-flammable, non-organic, non-conductive/electronic, non-metallic fetish. But hiding your fetishes under armor would net you a few creative points in my game, and I'd probably let them survive (at least the first volley). Of course, that's just how I'd run my game (which means house rules). If going by the strict interpretation of the rules, fetishes under your armor could still be hit.
| QUOTE (IcyCool) |
| This debate would be better if you had a copy of MitS Polaris, does your GM or someone in your group have a copy you could borrow? |
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahah
Oh my God that literally had me rolling on the freaking floor.
Sorry Pol, it WAS funny. Sphynx
| QUOTE (Polaris) |
| Actually my game that I play in goes exactly according to the rules in this. |
What rules, exactly? The game lacks rules for gear being damaged by most effects which would logically damage them. This is not the same as a "gear is indestructible" rule, just as the lack of rules on sex with goats doesn't make it impossible to have sex with a goat.
It's up to the GM, and it's perfectly fine for him to say that gear is never ever damaged. But as I've said, that is an unusual position. You shouldn't make broad conclusions based on that single strange way of playing.
| QUOTE |
| This is not the same as a "gear is indestructible" rule, just as the lack of rules on sex with goats doesn't make it impossible to have sex with a goat. |
WOOHOO! I know what my team's doing tonight!
| QUOTE |
| It's up to the GM, and it's perfectly fine for him to say that gear is never ever damaged. But as I've said, that is an unusual position. You shouldn't make broad conclusions based on that single strange way of playing. |
Also known as a Hasty Generalization logical fallacy, see my sig for details.
Also let's not overlook the obvious:
Also let's not overlook the obvious:
| QUOTE |
| Polaris Quoted: Unless the descriptive text of the spell specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature as assumed to survive a magical attack. If a creature rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against the effect, however, an exposed item is harmed (if the attack can harm objects). |
You have a one in 20 odds to roll a 1. When you roll that 1 your items are toast. Thats a 5% chance. Those odds suck pretty bad when dealing with equipment destruction when hit by a spell.
Hey! What the hell happened to my thread? =)
I believe nindaru, that it took the proverbial left turn at albequerque
I also think all your original questions were answered, if they weren't please feel free to ask any further questions and I'm sure they will get answered in between everyone collectively butting heads with Polaris
I also think all your original questions were answered, if they weren't please feel free to ask any further questions and I'm sure they will get answered in between everyone collectively butting heads with Polaris
Read page 182 of SR3(BBB), the last paragraph under Astral Spellcasting. Your answer is there.
Sphynx
Sphynx
Bit, you missed my smily face at the end there. I was only goofing. =) Actually, I like that the thread (and all my others) has taken a turn. I have learned alot that I would not even had asked about!
Thanks to you all!
Thanks to you all!
I was kidding too man and I'm desensitized against smiley faces that aren't yellow and graphical
and I'm desensitized against smiley faces that aren't yellow and graphical
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.