Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Attacking through focus
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
irinoxx
So, I read the rules carefully, and it appears to me that launching from astral space an area of effect combat spell through an active focus in order to blast people in the physical world is no longer canon. Right?
Zak
yes, and it wasn't in SR3 either
fistandantilus4.0
It was called Grounding. I miss it.
Smed
It last showed its face in SR2. I mis it too. It made using Foci a much more risky proposition.
Shrike30
It also made giving otherwise-mundane opposition any kind of magical support was nearly always fatal, if you had a telecommuting mage helping out with astral security. I'm glad it took a walk, from a GM's perspective.
Fortune
QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0)
It was called Grounding. I miss it.

I sure as hell don't! I hated Grounding, both as a Player and as a GM.
Charon
I kinda liked it, as long as the GM was being reasonable about it.

Grounding required an area spell, who had very substantial drain in SR2, and the drain was physical since you were in teh astral.

A mage seriously risked wounding himself through grounding. That kept PC mage from grounding willy-Nilly. And should keep NPC mage from doing it too except of course they didn't have to worry about the next encounter and that's where an unreasonable GM could make grounding very annoying indeed.

If you GMed SR2 and your players opted not to use foci at all, you probably were one of those unreasonable GM.

PS : I started GMing SR at 15 and wasn't all that reasonable in my very first campaign. wink.gif Turned out very foci light on the part of the PCs very fast! I calmed down for my second SR2 campaign and they made a come back.
deek
A little OT, but I think I started GMing SR1 around 15 or 16 as well...none of us really understood the magic rules, so we just opted to leave it out altogether focusing on implants, rigging and the matrix...

Seeing that SR4 is my first time back to the genre since then, I like being able to understand magic again, as that is one of the fun factors of the game...

Back to topic...based on what I am reading about grounding, I am glad it hasn't appeared in SR4...seems like it would ruin a lot of balance and could be way too easily abused.
fistandantilus4.0
QUOTE (Fortune)
QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0 @ Dec 29 2006, 02:35 AM)
It was called Grounding. I miss it.

I sure as hell don't! I hated Grounding, both as a Player and as a GM.

why? I liked it because it was another check on mages, which , IMO, the game could use. Especially in 4th edition. Couldn't always run around with acitve foci or quickened spells.
Jaid
couldn't you also do something similar in reverse by targetting an astrally projecting mage or something like that?
Zak
QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0)
why? I liked it because it was another check on mages, which , IMO, the game could use. Especially in 4th edition. Couldn't always run around with acitve foci or quickened spells.

well, i agree that it would be a check on mages. but it would also make the already powerful spirits better once again. A Spirit of Man would not care about the drain at all and could just go rampant foci bashing.
(but while im at that: did they change how 'Innate Spell' works from SR3 to SR4?)
fistandantilus4.0
Then the mage can go astral and fight them. They can't attack the foci if it isn't acitve.
Zak
Well, the idea was to surprise attack an unaware target (read: not astrally percieving in any way) and then get the jump on an active focus nuking the whole room. If the focus isn't active, this whole grounding in no problem anyway. And of course if the mage notices the attacker he can (should) fight him before he gets grounded.
This still screws over those people who take a nap while their focus is active.
fistandantilus4.0
QUOTE (Zak)
This still screws over those people who take a nap while their focus is active.

Kinda my point. Starting to wonder if I'm sadistic or something.

Really though, when I did see it used, it was used against people who walked around with half a dozen quickened spells or a bunch of foci that they always had acitve. I myself as a GM never used against someone who just forgot to turn it off. I always attacked them through it during combat, either forcing them into combat with an astral spirit, or to drop the targeted foci or spell.
Zak
True.
This thread made me think about implementing it into our game again. Got to talk with the players first tho - or well, maybe not rotfl.gif

And for the record: All GMs are sadistic. Especially in non flower-power games like SR. I have yet to be proven wrong on this.
kerbarian
QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0 @ Dec 28 2006, 03:51 PM)
why? I liked it because it was another check on mages, which , IMO, the game could use. Especially in 4th edition. Couldn't always run around with acitve foci or quickened spells.

Actually, there's already a good mechanism for preventing that -- wards.

Low-force wards are easy to break through, but there's a little gem hidden in the description of mana barriers

QUOTE (BBB)
Wards are a temporary form of dual-natured mana barrier

...

Any attack on a mana barrier or attempt to break through is immediately felt by the creator.

From there, it's pretty easy to extrapolate:

Corporate facilities, many businesses, and even some higher-end residences keep wards in place at all times on their buildings. These wards are often weak, but the mage groups that contract to place the wards also offer notification services. Any time one of the wards is breached, a mage will contact the appropriate building (and any other specified contacts) and inform them of the breach. Naturally, these same groups often offer astral response services as well.

If you try to walk around with active foci or quickened spells, you'll constantly be triggering alarms.
fistandantilus4.0
Not with Masking. You can spoof it again, thanks to Street Magic.
kerbarian
QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0)
Not with Masking. You can spoof it again, thanks to Street Magic.

I don't have Street Magic yet, but I suspected they'd reintroduce something like that. Still, it limits it to initiates with masking, which is something. Also, I don't know how easy the spoofing is or if high-force wards would help, but high-force wards are perfectly plausible for secure facilities -- they don't cost anything besides time.
fistandantilus4.0
they also put in the more advanced "Extended Masknig" that covers spells and foci
Kesslan
Still, it would have some basic use, since to have extended masking, you first have to have masking. So at the very least the person going in would be a class two initiate at the very least.
fistandantilus4.0
Spoofing the ward only requires the Masking metamagic. The Extended masking just let's you conceal the aura of foci and active spells (which is nice to have back too).
Kesslan
Well yes, but your 'average' mage apparently isnt initated.

There was some sort of fluff somewhere that states that obviously every awakened person generally works towards it, and generally by the time they retire have initated once or twice.

But even then, most types I would think, dont take masking since well. It's really one of those stealth based metamagics. If your totally legit (and there are plenty of legit awakened) you'd likely go for something that actually provides a boost to what ever it is you actually do for a living. (Of course some security and military mages would no doubt go for masking first thing I'd think. Not being noticed is a key to survival afterall in such settings)

So even basic wards would serve some purpose perhaps? Though then again if it's specifically setup to stop runners it might not actually do much I guess. But then alot of security measures dont 'do much' and still mange to occasionally foil would be thieves.
fistandantilus4.0
I think a lot of the basic wards are to stop little things like astral peeping toms and spirit assassins. biggrin.gif 'Course the spirit ould jsut bust through the ward, but that's kind of like kicking the door in and blasting away at the guards.

My tendency is usually to take masking first, and then second guess my self. It's very handy for runners, but you're right it really depends on what you're going for.

Grounding was great because ti kept folks from getting foci happy. Well that and foci addiction. I miss those little cruxs for mages. IMO they have to few checks in place against them now, although spoting spellcasting did get a lot easier (assuming the mage ins't invisible in the first place). Now it's like if you're going to have quickening, you'd better get masking first. As long as you've got that, things will get a lot easier.
Kesslan
Well isnt there some sort of foci addiction flaw or something now?

I know at least, oddly having a geas is considered a flaw. I suppose in a way it is. But most Geas arnt really that hard to meet. The flipside is it does nothing to actually take into account how easy/hard it is to fullfil not to mention how restrictive it is.

Afterall it could be it only 'works at night'. Well then your hosed if it's daylight. Where as if you say, make it 30 minutes of prayer or some such a day that geas is fufilled rather easily.
fistandantilus4.0
they way foci addiction used to work was that if you went over your magic rating in foci ( Ithink double the rating amount in active foci copmared to your magic attribute) you would begin to suffer focus addiction. Basically your magic would be weaker and weaker without the foci, so they became a psychological crutch. So if you used to much, you started having to use them. I personally hate the 'new' foci addiction, but I guess they figured it was just too much to keep track of.
Kesslan
Ahhhh.

Yeah thats much meaner. ANd really does make it like a sort of really expensive street drug.
Mortax
QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0)
they way foci addiction used to work was that if you went over your magic rating in foci ( Ithink double the rating amount in active foci copmared to your magic attribute) you would begin to suffer focus addiction.

I don't have awakenings with me, but I think it was = to your magic rating. This sonds a bit harsh, but it was needed as was grounding, as long as it wasn't abused.

I decided to never GM again without the focus addiction rules after there was one guy with a force 10 specific spell focus, lvl 2 power focus, 8-9 spell locks. All of them always on. And he got anoyed when I pointed out that he was an astral beacon.

20 points of active foci... it was just insane.

When I posted about this before (Think it was like a year ago), some didn't see a problem with not using focus addiction. The charater pays for using it, right?
The only problem is you can take a shaman starting character specialising in enchanting and one or two spells, and after a year and some traviling, doing a run of ~10K a month, you can get a shaman who pays about 5 karma to get a MR of about 106. Enchanting can get BROKEN if you take the time. I think at 106 MR, either:

1. Harlequin or D kill you
2. the horrers use you as a bridge and come back.

Personally, I still use grounding and focus addiction (I didn't swich to 4th). I don't have everyone they face try to ground, only if they are a BRIGHT fraggen taget, cause if they got that many foci they are a big threat, and woth the risk of the drain. Otherwise, it just makes it easier to track you if you get away. vegm.gif
NightmareX
QUOTE (Kesslan)
But even then, most types I would think, dont take masking since well. It's really one of those stealth based metamagics. If your totally legit (and there are plenty of legit awakened) you'd likely go for something that actually provides a boost to what ever it is you actually do for a living. (Of course some security and military mages would no doubt go for masking first thing I'd think. Not being noticed is a key to survival afterall in such settings)

I use the novels as a guide after a fashion. In Burning Bright, there is a scene where Teller scopes a bar on the astral and doesn't notice any magically active folks, but reminds himself that masking could always be a factor. I take this to mean that masking is something that enough initiates take for another initiate to consider it in normal situations. Yes, I know Burning Bright was under 2nd edition and every initiate got all the metamagics back then, but I like my continuity more than game mechanic number crunching thank you! wink.gif

That said, grounding occurs in two of the novels (successfully in Shadowplay, unsuccessfully in Night's Pawn), so for me it's part of the setting. Period. I made it into a metamagic to preserve balance (now that astral casting isn't always physical drain), and the end result looks like this.

Grounding
This technique allows an astrally projecting magician to channel spells through active foci or dual natured beings to effect the physical plane. When doing so, the magician must first take a Complex action to make an opposed Magic + Spellcasting test against that target focusís rating x2 (or dual beingís Willpower + Magic). One net hit is sufficient to create the necessary link. The magician then casts the spell as normal, although the spellís Drain value is increased by the number of hits the focus or dual being generated on the opposed test due to the manner of the casting. If the magician fails the opposed test, no link is created and no grounding is possible, but the magician must still resist a Drain value equal to the number of hits the focus or dual being generated on the opposed test.
Fortune
The official version of Gounding has always required the use of a Physical Area Effect Spell. One of the factors that is involved in the removal of Grounding is the prohibition on casting Physical Spells from the Astral. This was incorporated in SR3, at the same time as Grounding's disappearance.
Demerzel
Going back a few posts to the Masking trough wards.

Doesn't masking through wards require you to assence the creator of the ward, or at least someone authorized to pass through? And spoofing a mundane guard won't work because the ward doesn't apply to non-astrally active auras. So the possibility of spoofing through a ward even if you have masking is entirely dependant on some very solid legwoork beforehand.
Moon-Hawk
QUOTE (Demerzel)
Going back a few posts to the Masking trough wards.

Doesn't masking through wards require you to assence the creator of the ward, or at least someone authorized to pass through? And spoofing a mundane guard won't work because the ward doesn't apply to non-astrally active auras. So the possibility of spoofing through a ward even if you have masking is entirely dependant on some very solid legwoork beforehand.

SR4: You are 100% correct.
SR3: (and this is going to trip some people up who don't read the new rules carefully) No.
ornot
As I recall, using masking to get through wards is neither fast nor infallible. It's a lot easier to just shut down your spells and foci when you're not using them. If your players run around with a stack of sustained spells or quickened spells they have too much karma!

Grounding was a lot more important for checking mages' powers when there were spell-locks which were IMHO far too cheap for what they gave you.
Demerzel
QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)
SR4: You are 100% correct.
SR3: (and this is going to trip some people up who don't read the new rules carefully) No.

Yea, by far the biggest challenge I've had with SR4 is unlearning SR3-.
NightmareX
QUOTE (Fortune)
The official version of Gounding has always required the use of a Physical Area Effect Spell. One of the factors that is involved in the removal of Grounding is the prohibition on casting Physical Spells from the Astral. This was incorporated in SR3, at the same time as Grounding's disappearance.

Very true. Note however that in Shadowplay, the newly minted shaman kid uses a Control spell (Thoughts or maybe Actions) on a magician-guard/interogator to free is decker friend. Thus my reasoning in removing that restriction.

My question is, is my house version of Grounding mechanically balanced (leaving aside for a moment the argument of whether or not grounding itself can be balanced)?
fistandantilus4.0
QUOTE (Demerzel)
QUOTE (Moon-Hawk @ Dec 29 2006, 09:52 AM)
SR4: You are 100% correct.
SR3: (and this is going to trip some people up who don't read the new rules carefully) No.

Yea, by far the biggest challenge I've had with SR4 is unlearning SR3-.

Ditto. For spoofing wards, you can always assense the ward to get the mage's spell signature, then try tracking him. I love symbolic linking.

NX: I very much like the idea of incorporating it as a metamagic. i haven't read the Grimoire or Awakenings in years (sad for me) but I don't recall there being a test for it. I may just be forgetting though.

I would say that adding the foci's hits to your drain may be a bit harsh, although I do like the mechanic. Perhaps two seperate drain tests?
I'd also limit the spells to either be mana based spells on the persno bonded to the foci, or mana based areas such as mana ball, since, like Fortune said, you can't cast fireball on the astral.
Demerzel
p139 SR2 indicates a second test, force of spell against TN = rating of focus. In SR4 mechanics it would be roughly an opposed test Force of Spell vs. Rating of Foci.
fistandantilus4.0
cool, makes sense. Like I said, haven't seen the book in years. The test makes sense, seems consitent w/ other tests (such as wards) in SR4.
Mortax
QUOTE (NightmareX)
I use the novels as a guide after a fashion. In Burning Bright, there is a scene where Teller scopes a bar on the astral and doesn't notice any magically active folks, but reminds himself that masking could always be a factor. I take this to mean that masking is something that enough initiates take for another initiate to consider it in normal situations. Yes, I know Burning Bright was under 2nd edition and every initiate got all the metamagics back then, but I like my continuity more than game mechanic number crunching thank you! wink.gif

Agreed on the continuity isssue. smile.gif We still use 2nd edition (those were the only books we had for a long time) but we house ruled a LOT of different things, several of which were changes made in 3rd edition. So we really play something more like SR 2.5 smile.gif One of those rules was initiates not automatically getting all metamagics at once. (thoguh if you take what it says in the grimore literally, it doesn't actually say they do, it says "They have access to" metamagics.) One of my players wasslightly insulting about it when I instituted that rule, but he was also the same one with all the foci.
Demerzel
SR2 was also particularly harsh about foci moving through wards. The ward rolled a test with force dice against a TN of focus rating (1 for all spell locks remember). And if the ward got a number of successeses equal to the items rating then it was destroyed. That's harsh compared to SR4 just deactivates it when a focus fails to pass through a ward.

I can't say I'd be willing to put grounding back into my game however.
Mortax
I guess for me part of it is the people I play with. A lot of them make magically active characters, much higher than the avarage. I could tell them they weren't allowed to play a team of 5 all of them awakend, but then I would likely end up with fewer players. So the Astral Death Squad is probably not going to get jobs knocking over stuffer shacks. I have to come up with high magic threat runs. Not because mundanes can't handle the awakend, but because why would a J pay that kind of money for the ADS if he didn't need major mojo?

So grounding and harsh ward rules (they were a bit harder to set up in 2nd ed, so they were used more sparingly) is to give them a challenge that is difficult.

Guess I could just have every facility guarded by drop bear ninjas. cyber.gif
fistandantilus4.0
QUOTE (Demerzel)
I can't say I'd be willing to put grounding back into my game however.

why?

Mortax: Drop Bear ninjas are , in fact, the best solution. As SinN can attest, I've been having nightmares about mage heavy games. We finally got out of a campaign where every damn player was awakened. Much happier now that I just flat out said no, and only have one awakened character in my new campaign (SinN's Voodoun). I don't worry about grounding and such quite as much as I used to. But I like continuity, and I like the possiblity being htere.
Mortax
Yeah, I don't use that stick often. I only use grounding for people who are walking around with a lot of sustained spells and acive foci.

The worst was: 2 physad, 1 conjuring adept with a tac computer and weapon focus, fire elemental adept, and a coyote shaman.

For once the coyote wasn't the most irritating, then again I was GMing not playing. smile.gif

edit:
A coyote shaman with lots of drop bear allies......
vegm.gif
Demerzel
QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0 @ Dec 29 2006, 06:21 PM)
why?

While it's former canon I'm hesitant to houserule within a game system extensively. I like to say that anything I rule I can base on what's in the books. So there's that part of me that wants to say no for that reason alone.

But then there's the fact that every magician can summon a force 1 spirit and require it to manifest and drop a bomb through it. And oh yea, if you're worried about your spirits rebelling and throwing their edge into the rolls then woot they get an extra die or two... It's just a bit of a game breaker. Nearly a nuclear option.

Spells cast in astral are no longer always physical drain. On top of that Physical damage does not mean that much now anyway so if it were physical because you overcast then no biggie. A nice place to rest and you can be good to go in a matter of two or three days. Maybe even one if you've got a little luck. Used to be 7 boxes of damage (more than a S less than a D) was a interval of a month to drop you down to 6 boxes if you succeeded on your body check.

Like Jefferson was a strict seperation of Church and State advocate, I'm a stict separation of Astral and Physical. I can't get behind someone adding a metamagic that allows magicians to manifest for example.

The rules still allow you to destroy a active focus from the astral. Let that be enough. They took away force 1 spell locks, so nothing is cheap anymore. Knocking out someones force 4 manipulation sustaining focus is a hefty enough cost and karma investment. Leave it at that.
Konsaki
I thought that you could only deactivate someone's focus, not destroy it short of physically taking a hammer to it.
Mortax
QUOTE (Demerzel)
Like Jefferson was a strict seperation of Church and State advocate, I'm a stict separation of Astral and Physical. I can't get behind someone adding a metamagic that allows magicians to manifest for example.

Um, are you refering to them being able to manafest at all, or being able to manafest and affect physical objects?

Because I remember more than a few novels and I think a source book where mages manafested. They could not affect physical objects, but they could comunicate. Burning Bright is the first to come to mind.

I think you almost have to house rule some things, and every RPG I've ever read has said: this is your game, modify it however you want.

Taking out a force 10 focus is a pain, easier to fireball the persone holding it. (And anyone around them) And (again, pre 4th, I don't know about 4th) you can make a force ten or whatever focus that only costs you 1 karma to bond. It takes a high enchanting skill, and either time or money, but it can be done.

Konsaki:
Not sure about later edition, but in earlier editions wards, spirits, and anything duel natured or projecting could engage the focus in astral combat and destroy it. It was kind of like banashing the focus. smile.gif The higher the force, the harder. Most people put like 1 karma into a spell lock, so it was a force one an easy to destroy. A force 10 was a cast iron bitch.
Ancient History
QUOTE (Mortax)
QUOTE (Demerzel @ Dec 29 2006, 11:18 PM)
Like Jefferson was a strict seperation of Church and State advocate, I'm a stict separation of Astral and Physical.  I can't get behind someone adding a metamagic that allows magicians to manifest for example. 

Um, are you refering to them being able to manafest at all, or being able to manafest and affect physical objects?

Because I remember more than a few novels and I think a source book where mages manafested. They could not affect physical objects, but they could comunicate. Burning Bright is the first to come to mind.

I think you almost have to house rule some things, and every RPG I've ever read has said: this is your game, modify it however you want.

Taking out a force 10 focus is a pain, easier to fireball the persone holding it. (And anyone around them) And (again, pre 4th, I don't know about 4th) you can make a force ten or whatever focus that only costs you 1 karma to bond. It takes a high enchanting skill, and either time or money, but it can be done.

Konsaki:
Not sure about later edition, but in earlier editions wards, spirits, and anything duel natured or projecting could engage the focus in astral combat and destroy it. It was kind of like banashing the focus. smile.gif The higher the force, the harder. Most people put like 1 karma into a spell lock, so it was a force one an easy to destroy. A force 10 was a cast iron bitch.

Y'all are making an elementary error between manifesting and materialization. When a spirit creates a physical body to interact with the physical world-something that can hit and be hit-that is materialization. When a spirit or astrally projecting magician chooses to manifest, they extend the senses of their astral form into the physical, so that they can look around and communicate. They can see and be seen, but this is a purely psychic effect-you cannot record a manifest magician or spirit, you cannot injure it by purely physical means, you cannot blind it with a flash bulb.
Mortax
Okay, that's what it was. I forgot there were two different terms. I was hoping they didn't take away manafesting, my coyote shamans always used that for a laugh.
Demerzel
Thanks AH, I have some sort of mental block that prevents me from using the correct terms for those two abilities. I thought of materializiation metamagic as something I would not like as an example froma thread somewhere eairler that proposed allowing magicians to materialize. The astral/physical barrier is not something I'm willing to weaken in my game.

QUOTE (Konsaki)
I thought that you could only deactivate someone's focus, not destroy it short of physically taking a hammer to it.


You can target an active focus with a mana based combat space from the astral.

QUOTE (p191)
When activated, foci have an astral form [ . . . ]


QUOTE (p174)
Spells cast on astral objects like mana barriers or active foci are resisted with force.


Basically if you can do physical damage to a focus it's not any different from taking a hammer to it. So since it's astral when activated nothing stops me from dropping a manabolt into it. Even a manaball, however the ball's radius of effect will only include other active astral forms.
NightmareX
QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0)

NX: I very much like the idea of incorporating it as a metamagic. i haven't read the Grimoire or Awakenings in years (sad for me) but I don't recall there being a test for it. I may just be forgetting though.

IIRC it just added to the spell's TN, Drain Target and Drain Level, but I'm not sure.

QUOTE
I would say that adding the foci's hits to your drain may be a bit harsh, although I do like the mechanic. Perhaps two seperate drain tests?


It was either that or do two tests and make the drain for both automatically physical. I realize how beefy grounding can get, and want to keep it as difficult/painful as it was in 2nd. Otherwise, balance becomes a major issue. I went with only one test partly to reduce the number of dice rolls too.

QUOTE
I'd also limit the spells to either be mana based spells on the persno bonded to the foci, or mana based areas such as mana ball, since, like Fortune said, you can't cast fireball on the astral.


Unfortunately, that's counter cannon. In Shadowplay, the shaman kid hit the opposing magician and a couple of guards with a physical effect (don't know/remember what, just that the guards were on fire so I'm assuming a fireball from which he excluded his friend). [shrug]

I think the massive drain of slamming down fireballs in via grounding (with the way the HR is set up) would make it relatively rare and advanced.

QUOTE (Mortax)
Agreed on the continuity isssue.  smile.gif  We still use 2nd edition (those were the only books we had for a long time) but we house ruled a LOT of different things, several of which were changes made in 3rd edition.  So we really play something more like SR 2.5 smile.gif  One of those rules was initiates not automatically getting all metamagics at once.  (thoguh if you take what it says in the grimore literally, it doesn't actually say they do, it says "They have access to" metamagics.)  One of my players wasslightly insulting about it when I instituted that rule, but he was also the same one with all the foci.

[nods] We didn't even start really using house rules until 3rd, and then most of them were to preserve 1st/2nd edition flavor.

QUOTE (Demerzel)
But then there's the fact that every magician can summon a force 1 spirit and require it to manifest and drop a bomb through it.  And oh yea, if you're worried about your spirits rebelling and  throwing their edge into the rolls then woot they get an extra die or two...  It's just a bit of a game breaker.  Nearly a nuclear option.

The way I run spirits, any mage using those tactics would have serious problems really fast. And not just dice pool penalties. More like general uprising.

QUOTE
I can't get behind someone adding a metamagic that allows magicians to manifest for example. 

I wouldn't allow that one either - too beefy.

QUOTE (Mortax)
Because I remember more than a few novels and I think a source book where mages manafested.  They could not affect physical objects, but they could comunicate.  Burning Bright is the first to come to mind.

Twist does it in the third Secrets of Power book too.
fistandantilus4.0
Manifested in their atrally bits, being visible to people not seeing astrally, or materializing fully?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012