Full Version: Possession and Attribute Maximums.
But there is this one other Mage character who gets his rocks off using mind manipulation on everyone. Think of the fun man! Oh the jocularity of it all! Ha Haw!!
| QUOTE (Aaron @ Jun 6 2007, 02:35 AM) | ||
Assume a ward anchored to a rock in a cargo container; the ward is in the same size, shape, and position as the container. If I go inside and move the rock, the ward collapses, right? |
Yep. Some leeway should be given as to what constitutes moving it but if it moves significantly from its original position then the ward collapses. Also if the anchor is destroyed the ward collapses.
| QUOTE |
| If a crane moves the rock by lifting the cargo container, the ward does not collapse, but rather moves, right? |
The container example assumes the rock or magical circle or whatever is given a relatively stable base so that it might rock, but it wouldn't slide to the other side of the container - this could have been clearer.
| QUOTE |
| If this last is correct, how is this not moving the ward? What forces are at work that allow the ward to move? Why does the ward collapse when I change its position relative to the warded area, but not the crane? Is the cargo container somehow imparted some magical properties because it happens to occupy a space that corresponds to the warded area, even though it is not the anchor? |
Seem my response above. Placing a physical anchor for a ward in a moving object assumes you take care to fix it (the anchor) in place somehow. Were it not fixed and the crane's movement made the rock/candle/whatever slide to one end of the container it would pop the ward.
| QUOTE | ||
Would the ward collapse if the walls are torn down but the anchor left undisturbed? If not, why is the position of the walls important if the entire room were moved? If so, would a person or large object entering or leaving the warded area cause it to collapse because the relative area within the warded area has changed? |
Actually this is another thing we intend to visit in the next FAQ.
If the warded perimeter conforms to a physical reference (such as the walls of a building or the chassis of a van) and that physical reference is destroyed or seriously damaged then the ward collapses.
You might ask then why ever use a physical reference for the limits of a ward (ie. why not just ward a dome of "empty" space inside a room rather than its walls). Well, the best reason to do this is to hide it. If the ward conforms to the walls, the astral shadow of the physical wall hides the limits of the ward, this is convenient in a number of ways not least of which is to avoid people peeking in from "unwarded" corners of a room or vehicle.
During development we did discuss whether or not all wards should be limited to enclosed areas - but it was decided not to go with that option.
| QUOTE | ||
If the anchor is moved, what is keeping the ward from being able to move with it? Sure, the ground is an astral presence, but what if my rock was in a skyscraper? Are the physical walls somehow affecting the astral construct of the ward without being anchors themselves? It seems to me that the rules are fairly explicit that the anchor is what is important to a ward, and not what it envelops. |
Not exactly. While the anchor is important (it is the "foundation pillar" of the ward), the limits and shape of a ward are also determined when it is created and they cannot change. Should they conform to some physical element then that frame of reference cannot change either.
| QUOTE | ||
So I can actually kick an anchor placed on top of a building, and as long as the ward moved with the rock, it would not collapse? If not the anchor, what keeps a ward in place when it is in a room, the walls? |
See above.
| QUOTE | ||
Except that the FAQ and your explanation seem to say that wards can be picked up and moved, albeit only when their shape happens to coincide with some physical object. |
No. At most you could physically pick up and move the anchor. Since the anchor itself is a physical reference and not an astral one then the "wards are not portable astral constructs" remains true. There is no means of moving the ward on the astral.
| QUOTE (Synner) | ||||
Not exactly. While the anchor is important (it is the "foundation pillar" of the ward), the limits and shape of a ward are also determined when it is created and they cannot change. Should they conform to some physical element then that frame of reference cannot change either. |
Does this mean that I can create a ward using a rock as an anchor and if I performed the ritual on a platform at least a meter off the ground I could make a ward that had no barriers conforming with the ground or any walls and I could pick up the rock and move it around?
Also the anchor in the container has to be at least 1 meter from all edges of the container right? Does that mean that the anchor is on a platform at least 1 meter tall?
Technically yes, though I'd advocate some leniency on the part of the gamemaster. The 1m in every direction rule was introduced to give wards a minimum amount of volume, not to unnecessarily restrict placing of anchors - for instance, in my game, I normally allow anchoring magic circles to be placed on the floor (assuming the floor is at least 50 cm thick).
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| Technically yes, though I'd advocate some leniency on the part of the gamemaster. The 1m in every direction rule was introduced to give wards a minimum amount of volume, not to unnecessarily restrict placing of anchors - for instance, in my game, I normally allow anchoring magic circles to be placed on the floor (assuming the floor is at least 50 cm thick). |
a 50cm floor? how think do they build houses where you're from?
Aren't most floors built using 2x12s. if you add 2" for floor and ceiling on either side you're still only at 16". That gives you about 35 cm.
Now with the portable ward, does that means I can carry around a 2m sphere that magic can't be cast through? How is that not broken?
| QUOTE |
| No. At most you could physically pick up and move the anchor. Since the anchor itself is a physical reference and not an astral one then the "wards are not portable astral constructs" remains true. There is no means of moving the ward on the astral. |
If a car with an internal anchor duct-taped to the ceiling moves, and the ward moves with it, does the ward not move on the astral as well?
Also, with the container and the stable rock, if I'm astrally projecting and hovering above the container, and then a crane lifts the container and I encounter the ward, which moved: me or the ward?
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| Actually this is another thing we intend to visit in the next FAQ. |
I'm not entirely convinced that a FAQ would be strong enough. The RAW (both in SR and SM) contradict this ruling, and nowhere in either book do the rules suggest the FAQ ruling. One would need to include it in errata for both the main rule book and Street Magic. Not to mention that now there is an issue of wards encountering one another. Sure, one could apply the rules for being forced through a barrier, but which ward is "the barrier" through which the other ward is being forced?
The system described in the book (with wards that don't move at all, even when placed around cars) is simple and elegant already. It precludes any weirdness of wards-within-wards or using a warded box to disrupt astral forms. More importantly, it does not need any complicated explanation or inconsistent metaphysics to work. If one wants astral protection for that semi-trailer during shipment, have a magician cast Mana Barrier on it; that, at least, does not have movement restrictions placed on it by two rule books.
| QUOTE (odinson) | ||
a 50cm floor? how think do they build houses where you're from? Aren't most floors built using 2x12s. if you add 2" for floor and ceiling on either side you're still only at 16". That gives you about 35 cm. |
Concrete and plasticrete floors (not walls) in modern corporate skyscrapers, secure areas of buildings, high tech research labs, etc tend to average between 30-50 cms thickness more if you have significant ventilation and wiring systems - which is close enough for me.
| QUOTE |
| Now with the portable ward, does that means I can carry around a 2m sphere that magic can't be cast through? How is that not broken? |
Broken as compared to a magical personal spell/astral barrier spell that doesn't cost any nuyen, can be turned on and off at will, and won't get knocked out permanently and/or set off all types of arcane alarms when it runs into another ward?
| QUOTE (Synner @ Jun 6 2007, 08:40 AM) |
| Broken as compared to a magical personal spell/astral barrier spell that doesn't cost any nuyen, can be turned on and off at will, and won't get knocked out permanently and/or set off all types of arcane alarms when it runs into another ward? |
.... BUT does not require being sustained, and can be made really tough through ritual magic .....
Broken may be too severe a word, but it does seem like a really powerful tool.
Edited, to make more sense.
| QUOTE (Aaron @ Jun 6 2007, 11:53 AM) | ||
If a car with an internal anchor duct-taped to the ceiling moves, and the ward moves with it, does the ward not move on the astral as well? |
Yes, the ward has moved and it has moved on the astral, this does not contradict the fact that it is not astrally portable. I believe that what we have here is a simply a misunderstanding as to the meaning of the word "portable."
It's physical form is portable, its astral form is not. Portable means that something "can be carried, transported or conveyed; easily transported by hand." (Webster's).
Nothing that I've said contradicts the fact that wards cannot be carried, transported or conveyed on the astral plane (hence "wards are not portable astral constructs" like say a focus. Wards can move however - if their physical anchor and its frame of reference can be carried, transported or conveyed on the physical plane.
| QUOTE |
| Also, with the container and the stable rock, if I'm astrally projecting and hovering above the container, and then a crane lifts the container and I encounter the ward, which moved: me or the ward? |
I'll reiterate again not being astrally portable does not mean a ward cannot be moved (as long as its the physical components doing the moving). In your example, the ward has moved and has encountered an astral/projecting presence - resolve as usual (pressing through barriers rules)
| QUOTE | ||
I'm not entirely convinced that a FAQ would be strong enough. The RAW (both in SR and SM) contradict this ruling, and nowhere in either book do the rules suggest the FAQ ruling. One would need to include it in errata for both the main rule book and Street Magic. |
This "ruling" is in fact simply a clarification that reflects both the intention of the author and the developers. It is not contradicted in either of the books you quote to the best of my knowledge. Nowhere does it say that wards are static and immobile.
All the base book says is that "a ward cannot be moved from its physical
component to another location" it mentions nothing about what happens when the physical components (the physical anchor and the frame of reference) are themselves moved. What the FAQ clarifies is that as long as the relative relation of the physical elements of the ward are not disturbed while being physically moved then the ward itself will move.
Note that the wards require both a physical component for its anchor and for its limits.
| QUOTE |
| Not to mention that now there is an issue of wards encountering one another. Sure, one could apply the rules for being forced through a barrier, but which ward is "the barrier" through which the other ward is being forced? |
Under normal circumstances the one that is in motion should be the one that's pressing through the barrier.
| QUOTE |
| The system described in the book (with wards that don't move at all, even when placed around cars) is simple and elegant already. It precludes any weirdness of wards-within-wards or using a warded box to disrupt astral forms. More importantly, it does not need any complicated explanation or inconsistent metaphysics to work. If one wants astral protection for that semi-trailer during shipment, have a magician cast Mana Barrier on it; that, at least, does not have movement restrictions placed on it by two rule books. |
I repeat there is no contradiction.
| QUOTE (pbangarth @ Jun 6 2007, 01:10 PM) | ||
.... and does not require being sustained, and can be made really tough through ritual magic ..... Broken may be too severe a word, but it does seem like a really powerful tool. |
Let me correct myself. You still have to have a physical frame of reference besides the anchor, the limits of the ward need to be defined by physical elements (even if these are ancient standing stones, warding symbols scribbled on all walls, or a chalk circle marking the perimeter of the dome) - these are what must remain at the same relative distance to the anchor. Under the rules you can't actually walk around with a sphere of warded space with no physical delimitation.
| QUOTE (Synner) | ||||
Let me correct myself. You still have to have a physical frame of reference besides the anchor, the limits of the ward need to be defined by physical elements (even if these are ancient standing stones, warding symbols scribbled on all walls, or a chalk circle marking the perimeter of the dome) - these are what must remain at the same relative distance to the anchor. Under the rules you can't actually walk around with a sphere of warded space with no physical delimitation. |
If wards need a physical frame of reference then how can you have a ward in an unenclosed space? even if you went outside and had standing stones there would be no frame of re fence for the top of the ward. haveing a dome roof doesn't have a frame of reference? If you can have one dimension without a physical frame of reference then why not all of them?
Also where in RAW does it say you need a physical frame of reference other than an anchor.
So the only way to have a ward fully enclose something is to ward a fully enclosed box?
Is that really what you want? What's so hard about a ward extending through a non physical area as long as there is some physical anchor or dimension to map to? If you can't do this then wards are much less useful. Though easier to think about.
Is that really what you want? What's so hard about a ward extending through a non physical area as long as there is some physical anchor or dimension to map to? If you can't do this then wards are much less useful. Though easier to think about.
Each plane of the ward has to be limited by at least three points that are defined by physical objects. The standing stones scenario is the perfect example.
Not only does the ward limits make a series of verticle planes which extend between the standing stones, but the tops of the stones mark points through which a horizontal plane can pass, capping the ward. This is how, for example, you can put a door in a ward. The physical door frame marks the limits of the plane which passes through the doorway.
Or to put it another way: you don't have to cover the entire area in wrapping paper inscribed with protective symbols, you just have to tack up a symbol at each end-point of the space. A warded cube, for example, can be defined by 8 points.
That's one point for each terminal corner, not infinity points for every point on the surface.
-Frank
Not only does the ward limits make a series of verticle planes which extend between the standing stones, but the tops of the stones mark points through which a horizontal plane can pass, capping the ward. This is how, for example, you can put a door in a ward. The physical door frame marks the limits of the plane which passes through the doorway.
Or to put it another way: you don't have to cover the entire area in wrapping paper inscribed with protective symbols, you just have to tack up a symbol at each end-point of the space. A warded cube, for example, can be defined by 8 points.
That's one point for each terminal corner, not infinity points for every point on the surface.
-Frank
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
| Each plane of the ward has to be limited by at least three points that are defined by physical objects. The standing stones scenario is the perfect example. Not only does the ward limits make a series of verticle planes which extend between the standing stones, but the tops of the stones mark points through which a horizontal plane can pass, capping the ward. This is how, for example, you can put a door in a ward. The physical door frame marks the limits of the plane which passes through the doorway. Or to put it another way: you don't have to cover the entire area in wrapping paper inscribed with protective symbols, you just have to tack up a symbol at each end-point of the space. A warded cube, for example, can be defined by 8 points. That's one point for each terminal corner, not infinity points for every point on the surface. -Frank |
And thats RAW or just what you say?
| QUOTE (odinson) | ||
And thats RAW or just what you say? |
That's RAW, coupled of course with the explanatory text that came in the FAQ.
Note that RAW also allows you to connect terminal points with simple curves rather than planes, allowing you to make a simple circle of boundary and connect the dots with a domed arc.
That option, however, makes me uncomfortable and I don't normally use it. The rules don't define how steep a curve one is allowed to claim, meaning that it's quite easy to claim that you can make a very steep parabolic section with just three points, which seems a little bit like cheating. But it is RAW
-Frank
I'd like to have come across this thread sooner. I very strongly agree with Frank in that attributes should not be capped for possessed characters. I have a fair bit of experience with possession spirits in my game and I am also very familiar with how the numbers play out in practice. I too would very genuinely like to ask the developers to reconsider introducing caps and leave things as they are.
Frank has made a very good point regarding the possessed and channeling mage being the de facto replacement for the materialised spirit and that therefore one should not be unfairly limited in relation to the other.
I'd also like to add that most of the points people have made about casually possessing security guards, team members, etc. are balanced in practice. Firstly, possession attempts by low force spirits quite frequently fail, whilst a materialised spirit is guaranteed to show up and start drawing fire and inflicting damage right away. Another draw back of low-force spirits is that even if you persuade your team mates to allow possession or channel the spirit yourself, you weaken the possessed character considerably by lowering mental and special attributes. You can normally rule out edge use for a start. As to stomping around the run site with possessed gang-members or troll zombies, quite frankly the last thing you need is a Force 3 spirit with no stealth skills.
I'm not saying low-force possession spirits are useless. There are lots of creative uses for them, but they do have some big restrictions in comparison to the materialised versions.
At high force, they have more power, but then so do materialised spirits and as Frank has pointed out, a mage that channels the spirit is halving his avenues of attack against the enemy, whilst the team mate samurai could well have lost points in his firearms skill or other areas along with access to his edge pool. Yes, you still have the option to possess one of the enemy, but you don't want to be blowing a high-force spirit on bog-standard security guards. You'll save it for the Renraku samurai. A force 6 spirit having, incidentally, only around a 63% chance of successful possesion against a red samurai vs. the 100% chance of materialising a normal spirit has.
I don't really have time to go into things in detail here. There was a very long thread elsewhere I can dig up where I went through a lot of number crunching and other points. I think the general consensus that emerged there was that possession was good, but in many ways weaker than materialisation. They're a little bit of a scalpel compared to the swiss army knife that is materialisation. And capping them blunts that scalpel quite a bit.
But I suppose one final issue would be that in capping this, the developers will rob many GMs of wonderful, frightening villains. When I want a little girl possessed by an ancient evil to throw a car at the PCs, I want a little girl possessed by an ancient evil to throw a car at the PCs.
Seriously, I think the developers got it right the first time. All my experience and considerable number crunching says that it's good without the caps. I really, sincerely hope that the developers read this and change their mind.
Thanks,
-K.
There are also many tactical advantages to
| QUOTE (Knasser) |
| But I suppose one final issue would be that in capping this, the developers will rob many GMs of wonderful, frightening villains. When I want a little girl possessed by an ancient evil to throw a car at the PCs, I want a little girl possessed by an ancient evil to throw a car at the PCs. |
...shhh...don't give any spoilers away to my group
My main concern was dealing with powergamer PCs becoming way too ubermensch compared to the rest of the team and the NPCs. An initiate mage channelling a force 8 Spirit, yikes! I almost need a cyberzombie to counter that (but the rules for CZs are still somewhere out there beyond the blue event horizon).
| QUOTE (Synner @ Jun 6 2007, 08:12 AM) |
| It's physical form is portable, its astral form is not. Portable means that something "can be carried, transported or conveyed; easily transported by hand." (Webster's). |
Er ... that's the second definition. The first is "capable of being carried, transported or conveyed easily: a portable television." Although if you'd like to support your point by easily transporting a portable toilet by hand, I'll concede.
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| Nothing that I've said contradicts the fact that wards cannot be carried, transported or conveyed on the astral plane (hence "wards are not portable astral constructs" like say a focus. Wards can move however - if their physical anchor and its frame of reference can be carried, transported or conveyed on the physical plane. |
The link is between the anchor and the space being warded (SM, p. 123). That space can be open, empty space, as long as the anchor shares some of the space; says so on the same page.
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| I'll reiterate again not being astrally portable does not mean a ward cannot be moved (as long as its the physical components doing the moving). In your example, the ward has moved and has encountered an astral/projecting presence - resolve as usual (pressing through barriers rules) |
I'll bite; why is there nothing at all in the rules about wards encountering one another? Why is there explicit material about setting up a ward around, within, or overlapping an adjacent ward, but not intersecting as they move?
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| This "ruling" is in fact simply a clarification that reflects both the intention of the author and the developers. It is not contradicted in either of the books you quote to the best of my knowledge. Nowhere does it say that wards are static and immobile. |
But the "ruling" is incompatible with the rules. I've already posted my arguments for the contradictions. I have not seen arguments to the contrary. "The developers intended ..." is not a valid argument about what is written in the books; the Kessel Run is still measured in parsecs.
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| All the base book says is that "a ward cannot be moved from its physical component to another location" it mentions nothing about what happens when the physical components (the physical anchor and the frame of reference) are themselves moved. |
Is Street Magic fair game for this debate? Because then I'd mention "Wards are not portable astral objects. The warding ritual creates an astral link between the shadow of the physical anchor and the space being warded. If the physical anchor moves more than a few centimeters from its location at the time of the warding ritual, the entire ward collapses." Notice there's no mention of a frame of reference, just it's location. If I tear your bedroom out of your home and move it to Sao Paolo, has your bed moved from its location?
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| What the FAQ clarifies is that as long as the relative relation of the physical elements of the ward are not disturbed while being physically moved then the ward itself will move. |
So if I ward a car, the ward collapses if I open the door?
| QUOTE |
| Note that the wards require both a physical component for its anchor and for its limits. |
I can't seem to find wording to that effect. Where does it state that there has to be physical elements, aside from the anchor?
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| Under normal circumstances the one that is in motion should be the one that's pressing through the barrier. |
Why is that not explicit in the rules? In fact, the list of things that might accidentally pass through a mana barrier is exhaustive if wards are immobile.
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| I repeat there is no contradiction. |
And the printed evidence from the books that supports that argument is ...?
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
| That's RAW, coupled of course with the explanatory text that came in the FAQ. |
Can we get a reference? Maybe some quoted text?
I don't think new material belongs in a FAQ. A FAQ contains explanations and examples from the rules. If you want to change what the rules say, put it in errata; otherwise you're just printing home rules, and I think that's a bit less than professional. Which may appropriate; game design isn't lucrative, after all, but it's still less than cool. That unnamed game from the wicked wizard of the pacific northwest might not be popular around here, but it raised the bar for tabletop RPGs. Shadowrun has a good strong concept and quality developers, and there's no reason it can't hit those marks.
damn too slow.
Aaron is right though, an FAQ only clarifies rules. The errata is where changes should be made. If it's only found in the FAQ then it isn't RAW.
Aaron is right though, an FAQ only clarifies rules. The errata is where changes should be made. If it's only found in the FAQ then it isn't RAW.
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid) |
| An initiate mage channelling a force 8 Spirit, yikes! |
I'm interested in this debate. Why is that so much scarier than a comparable initiate mage with a force 8 materialization spirit?
Is it just the poorly defined interaction of immunity to normal weapons and worn armor?
Oh, and for the record, I think Frank's right about limits on possessed/inhabited attributes.
I'm starting to agree. Possession sounds scary. Dang scary. Especially the possession of opponents. It sounds fun to think of killing one guard with another, until you realize that your buddy could start blasting your team, and you can't stop him--without killing him.
But, that said, a materializing spirit will kill you all just as dead. It just removes the "ick" factor.
But, that said, a materializing spirit will kill you all just as dead. It just removes the "ick" factor.
Question on wards...
In many threads here, they're referred to as a big source of wagemage income. And with this great portability, wouldn't they be ubiquitous?
So, does every T-Bird and Citymaster pack a low-level ward? Every armored limo? Most guard stations? What about fighters or LS choppers (although I dunno if you could hide the rotors behind a ward)? Shouldn't expensive government or corp assets come with a reasonably-cheap ward? And what about drones, especially the bigger UAVs?
Just how common are they?
In many threads here, they're referred to as a big source of wagemage income. And with this great portability, wouldn't they be ubiquitous?
So, does every T-Bird and Citymaster pack a low-level ward? Every armored limo? Most guard stations? What about fighters or LS choppers (although I dunno if you could hide the rotors behind a ward)? Shouldn't expensive government or corp assets come with a reasonably-cheap ward? And what about drones, especially the bigger UAVs?
Just how common are they?
Synner, if I understood your intent correctly the cap on attributes for possessed/inhabited vessels apply to ALL vessels, even inanimate ones?
If that's correct, what would the caps of, say, a stone humunculi be?
Or do you mean that a Troll possessed by a Force 12 spirit caps Body at 15, but a plasteel homunculi would get 20 and a Zombie could get 27?
If that's correct, what would the caps of, say, a stone humunculi be?
Or do you mean that a Troll possessed by a Force 12 spirit caps Body at 15, but a plasteel homunculi would get 20 and a Zombie could get 27?
The wording of the rules about wards is not very clear and wards are poorly defined, in general.
It seems apparent to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, the whole "anchor can't be moved" rule was created to allow open wards in exterior areas while forbidding ward bullets which it was always the intent to allow warded containers, though this is very contradictory.
There is also the issue of nested wards being impossible. I understand why this is. Otherwise, it would be possible for a character to stack dozens of low-force wards millimeters from each other and force a character to combat multiple wards at once.
This is obviously bad. However, the existence of warded luggage means that hot ward-on-ward action is inevitable and there needs to be some clarification about what happens when ward meets ward.
Furthermore, the lack of nested wards means that magicians can never take their special luggage into their lodges, which kind of sucks.
Of course, there are also issues of how wards are defined. In some ways, they act as full three-dimensional objects (no nesting) while in other ways they act as flat two-dimensional fences stretched around a three dimensional area (metaplanar bypass, forcing through).
It seems apparent to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, the whole "anchor can't be moved" rule was created to allow open wards in exterior areas while forbidding ward bullets which it was always the intent to allow warded containers, though this is very contradictory.
There is also the issue of nested wards being impossible. I understand why this is. Otherwise, it would be possible for a character to stack dozens of low-force wards millimeters from each other and force a character to combat multiple wards at once.
This is obviously bad. However, the existence of warded luggage means that hot ward-on-ward action is inevitable and there needs to be some clarification about what happens when ward meets ward.
Furthermore, the lack of nested wards means that magicians can never take their special luggage into their lodges, which kind of sucks.
Of course, there are also issues of how wards are defined. In some ways, they act as full three-dimensional objects (no nesting) while in other ways they act as flat two-dimensional fences stretched around a three dimensional area (metaplanar bypass, forcing through).
| QUOTE (Big D) |
| In many threads here, they're referred to as a big source of wagemage income. And with this great portability, wouldn't they be ubiquitous? |
Common yes. Ubiquitous, no. Remember that Wards are like walls. More than that, they are like air tight walls that go all around something. That's fine for a computer server or something else that doesn't have to get moved, but you'd never put one around anything that something magical might have to go through legitimately.
So you're not usually going to see a ward around a citymaster, because sometimes Ares likes to send spirits in to provide Movement and Guard, and having some third party wage mage put up a ward would keep that spirit from using it. Similarly, you're not going to have a ward around a limosine because sometimes the guests are the beneficiaries of quickened spells.
Wards are as cheap as razor wire near as makes no odds, so they'd go in any place you'd consider putting up razor wire, and for the same reason.
---
So if you've got a facility where none of the magical workers have quickened spells or need to sustain things for long periods of time - go for it. Put up a ward and clearly label where it is so that everything magical can be turned off before stepping over the line and then turn it back on when you reach the other side.
If you've got a facility where people could legitimately be expected to carry active magical items and dual objects into the area, then a ward is a really obviously shit idea. So you can put a warded area next to the Hellhound pen, but not in the Hellhound pen.
-Frank
| QUOTE (Aaron @ Jun 6 2007, 07:28 PM) | ||
Er ... that's the second definition. The first is "capable of being carried, transported or conveyed easily: a portable television." Although if you'd like to support your point by easily transporting a portable toilet by hand, I'll concede. |
Let's try this again. From the current online Websters:
portable = 1 a : capable of being carried or moved about <a portable TV>
I reiterate: by no understanding of the rules can a ward's astral construct "be carried or moved about" on the astral plane. Hence it is not a "portable astral construct."
Note there is a difference between it being able to move and it being carried, transported, or moved. Had we said at any point that a ward's astral construct was immobile, static, or immovable, I'd concede your point. We did not. We said the astral construct of a ward is not portable.
| QUOTE | ||
The link is between the anchor and the space being warded (SM, p. 123). That space can be open, empty space, as long as the anchor shares some of the space; says so on the same page. |
I fail to see an inconsistency. Lack of clarity yes. Inconsistency no. The ward is erected with an anchor as its physical component — at the time it is raised an appropriate shape and size is defined which may or may not conform with physical elements present. As long as the internal relation between the ward and the anchor isn't changed the ward hasn't moved .
The core book (p.185) says as much, a ward cannot be moved from its physical component to another location. This means the two cannot be separated or distanced. It makes no reference as to what happens when the physical reference itself moves.
| QUOTE | ||
I'll bite; why is there nothing at all in the rules about wards encountering one another? Why is there explicit material about setting up a ward around, within, or overlapping an adjacent ward, but not intersecting as they move? |
Because nobody actually thought of including it and because it went back and forth several times during development. Neither the authors nor the editors thought to include it. Note that the material you mention above is specifically about raising wards in the first place, nothing more, nothing less.
| QUOTE | ||
But the "ruling" is incompatible with the rules. I've already posted my arguments for the contradictions. I have not seen arguments to the contrary. "The developers intended ..." is not a valid argument about what is written in the books; the Kessel Run is still measured in parsecs. |
Again I disagree that this clarification is incompatible with the rules.
| QUOTE | ||
Is Street Magic fair game for this debate? Because then I'd mention "Wards are not portable astral objects. The warding ritual creates an astral link between the shadow of the physical anchor and the space being warded. If the physical anchor moves more than a few centimeters from its location at the time of the warding ritual, the entire ward collapses." Notice there's no mention of a frame of reference, just it's location. If I tear your bedroom out of your home and move it to Sao Paolo, has your bed moved from its location? |
Again both Street Magic and the core book state that the ward cannot move in relation to the anchor. If the ward and anchor moves there has been no relative movement.
| QUOTE | ||
So if I ward a car, the ward collapses if I open the door? |
Yup. Though it ultimately depends on how lenient a GM wants to be.
| QUOTE | ||
I can't seem to find wording to that effect. Where does it state that there has to be physical elements, aside from the anchor? |
You are correct in that the wording in the corebook can be interpreted both as referring to the anchor or to the delimiters. Again this will be clarified in upcoming FAQ and errata.
| QUOTE | ||
Why is that not explicit in the rules? In fact, the list of things that might accidentally pass through a mana barrier is exhaustive if wards are immobile. |
Because no one at the time thought it would be a huge issue since the rules astral constructs/entities/etc moving through one another had already been covered in the rule book.
The list in the relevant section of the rule book (p.185-186) covers all sorts of mana barriers including wards, mana barrier spells and magical lodges (p. 185 first paragraph). No where does it state that the aforementioned mana barriers have to be immobile. Please feel free to cite where the rules declare that wards are immobile astral constructs, or where the Passing through Barriers rules spell out what happens when an area astral barrier spell (which I assume you agree can be mobile and is a mana barrier), say cast by someone riding in a car, encounters a ward.
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
| That's RAW, coupled of course with the explanatory text that came in the FAQ. |
Can we get a reference? Maybe some quoted text?
| QUOTE |
| I don't think new material belongs in a FAQ. A FAQ contains explanations and examples from the rules. If you want to change what the rules say, put it in errata; otherwise you're just printing home rules, and I think that's a bit less than professional. Which may appropriate; game design isn't lucrative, after all, but it's still less than cool. That unnamed game from the wicked wizard of the pacific northwest might not be popular around here, but it raised the bar for tabletop RPGs. Shadowrun has a good strong concept and quality developers, and there's no reason it can't hit those marks. |
I reiterate, this is no new rule, it is a clarification on the interpretation of existing rules (especifically the basic rules on Wards in the BBB and in SM).
| QUOTE |
| Furthermore, the lack of nested wards means that magicians can never take their special luggage into their lodges, which kind of sucks. |
The minimum ward size is a 1m radius sphere. If you filled that with water, your luggage would come in at 4.19 tonnes.
Just saying.
-Frank
This is reminding me of all the relativistic physics coursework and math I used to do a long time ago.
Astral Physics of one kind or another leads to mind warping.
Astral Physics of one kind or another leads to mind warping.
| QUOTE |
| So if I ward a car, the ward collapses if I open the door? Yup. Though it ultimately depends on how lenient a GM wants to be. |
Time to weld the doors shut and just hop in through the open window spaces (there will be no glass). Here comes the warded General Lee!
While I'd love to continue this discussion (and those that know me know I can argue anything to death) I'm going to be real busy in the next couple of days so I won't be posting to DSF until at least the weekend. Apologies for leaving things hanging, but believe me when I say that most of you will prefer it if I focus on the things I have on my desk at the moment.
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| While I'd love to continue this discussion (and those that know me know I can argue anything to death) I'm going to be real busy in the next couple of days so I won't be posting to DSF until at least the weekend. Apologies for leaving things hanging, but believe me when I say that most of you will prefer it if I focus on the things I have on my desk at the moment. |
Well, who doesn't want Arsenal and Emergence and those fun things to come out soon? Raise your hands. (not I...)
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| The core book (p.185) says as much, a ward cannot be moved from its physical component to another location. This means the two cannot be separated or distanced. It makes no reference as to what happens when the physical reference itself moves. [ ... ] Again both Street Magic and the core book state that the ward cannot move in relation to the anchor. If the ward and anchor moves there has been no relative movement. |
"Wards are not portable astral objects. The warding ritual creates an astral link between the shadow of the physical anchor and the space being warded. If the physical anchor moves more than a few centimeters from its location at the time of the warding ritual, the entire ward collapses." (SM, p. 123)
It does not say "moves more than a few centimeters from the ward." The word, "relative" does not appear in any section about wards in either book. The words are "from its location at the time of the warding ritual."
Also, my question about moving someone's bedroom hasn't been answered.
I'd almost like to see the entire section on Wards scrapped and rewritten to include details on the central anchor as well as the outlying perimeter marks.
However, I think we might already be there.
However, I think we might already be there.
| QUOTE (DireRadiant) | ||
Well, who doesn't want Arsenal and Emergence and those fun things to come out soon? Raise your hands. (not I...) |
Well yes I hope so too, but if those are just now beginning to be worked on......
WMS
| QUOTE (HappyDaze) | ||
Time to weld the doors shut and just hop in through the open window spaces (there will be no glass). Here comes the warded General Lee! |
Isn't that kinda like saying that you wouldn't be able to ward a house because if you open the door, the ward collapses?
Just askin', is all.
More importantly if you go with the 'non-relative' absolute movement breaks wards...
Then the whole fact of:
The solar system spinning around the galaxy.
The earth orbiting the sun.
Tetunic plate drift causing land mass to move on earth.
In alot of places building sink a bit each year.
Even in a 'stationary' building things are moving VERY VERY fast.
Even relative to 'earth' things move.
Does every ward in Japan break every time there is a earthquake and the ground ripples 4-6 inches?
Then the whole fact of:
The solar system spinning around the galaxy.
The earth orbiting the sun.
Tetunic plate drift causing land mass to move on earth.
In alot of places building sink a bit each year.
Even in a 'stationary' building things are moving VERY VERY fast.
Even relative to 'earth' things move.
Does every ward in Japan break every time there is a earthquake and the ground ripples 4-6 inches?
what does an NPC/PC use to counter possession? If I want to slyly have a spirit possess our sami or other mage what aside from Willpower are they going to resist with?
| QUOTE (Magus) |
| what does an NPC/PC use to counter possession? If I want to slyly have a spirit possess our sami or other mage what aside from Willpower are they going to resist with? |
It's spirit's Force x 2 vs. target's Intuition + Willpower. Note that the spirit needs net successes, so ties go in the target's favour.
Say you summon a force 3 spirit and attempt to possess a standard security guard (Int 3, Will 3 according to the sample guard in the book), there's a less than fifty-fifty chance of successfully possessing. You need to scale the force of your spirit up quite a bit to get reliable odds of an aggressive possession. Whether or not a willing target can choose to fail the resistance test is debatable but RAW they can't and I would go with that as the prepared vessel rules imply it. So low force spirits are also going to be a poor choice for possessing team mates. In comparison, materialised spirits always get a result. And you don't want to be using Force 6 spirits on security guards just for the sake of competing with materialisation.
In regards to the Force 8 spirit comment earlier, it's true that it's scary. But force 8 spirits are supposed to be show stoppers anyway. A materialised version would also be very dangerous and assuming that the mage is using it to channel through herself (which is what we've been discussing), the mage has only gained the new boosted version of themself at the cost of having both a Force 8 spirit and a mage capable of summoning one as separate entities attacking and drawing fire separately. If you apply the spirit to your teammate (which most players would not be happy about), then your net gain is pretty low as the teammate would probably have been very effective on their own. And if you possess some poor ganger, have you really gained much? A materialised earth elemental would have higher stats and could appear whereever whenever you liked, rather than traipsing round the facility after you wasting a service when you might not even need to call on that spirit.
And don't forget that the Force 8 spirit cost you 4,000
and probably quite a bit of pain, too. If you don't get thirty seconds of immunity to bullets out of it, it was a pretty poor exchange.I'm not saying that possession isn't good. I'm just saying that it's not over-powered and is balanced with materialisation.
| QUOTE |
| Whether or not a willing target can choose to fail the resistance test is debatable but RAW they can't and I would go with that as the prepared vessel rules imply it. |
However, you CAN both just buy hits with 4 dice = 1 hit. So long as the Spirit's pool is 4 dice higher, it will automaically succeed by RAW.
Just to chime in, as usual Frank seems to have the better grasp of the mechanics. Possession should not be capped as Materialization isn't.
As far as the possession of the enemy, I don't really see how their effort to resist the spirit's influence is any different than a number of spells that remove free will. They get a chance to resist. Any "bunker of guards" worth their morning soycaf will either have a ward on the bunker or a wage mage to throw some counterspelling or banishing dice. Spirits regardless of their functional methods already have counters and its well known that Group with Mage/Spirits > than group without.
As for possessing gang members or people on the street, sure you could, but the reality is no one is going to look to kindly at things like that, and in Shadowrun everyone has friends. Sure lil missy sue who you possessed to get in a fight with some samurai would kick some ass, except when the possession ended she'd still be left with damage and probably die. But oh noes, Sue's uncle is a nasty ass shaman in his own right and doesn't take kindly to his favorite niece being used as fodder. Gangs probably have more members than the number of spirits you have bound, and tend to be pretty particular about what happens to their fellow bangers. All actions have consequence.
As for the "I possess my teammates with a force 4 spirit to up all their physical attributes by 4" must realize that 1) The characters are no longer in control and probably won't think its fun watching you play the whole game yourself no matter how uber it would make their guys and 2) None of their knowledge/skills/or experiences (read memory) are available either, so I hope you know everything you'll need to for every encounter.
I don't know but I usually find lots of ways to dispel any of the min/maxing some you guys throw about like its everyday game tactics. The GM/Player dynamic is the ultimate balancer in any game and no GM should sit by while any character tries this stuff and thinks that the RAW is the end all of a game session.
As far as the possession of the enemy, I don't really see how their effort to resist the spirit's influence is any different than a number of spells that remove free will. They get a chance to resist. Any "bunker of guards" worth their morning soycaf will either have a ward on the bunker or a wage mage to throw some counterspelling or banishing dice. Spirits regardless of their functional methods already have counters and its well known that Group with Mage/Spirits > than group without.
As for possessing gang members or people on the street, sure you could, but the reality is no one is going to look to kindly at things like that, and in Shadowrun everyone has friends. Sure lil missy sue who you possessed to get in a fight with some samurai would kick some ass, except when the possession ended she'd still be left with damage and probably die. But oh noes, Sue's uncle is a nasty ass shaman in his own right and doesn't take kindly to his favorite niece being used as fodder. Gangs probably have more members than the number of spirits you have bound, and tend to be pretty particular about what happens to their fellow bangers. All actions have consequence.
As for the "I possess my teammates with a force 4 spirit to up all their physical attributes by 4" must realize that 1) The characters are no longer in control and probably won't think its fun watching you play the whole game yourself no matter how uber it would make their guys and 2) None of their knowledge/skills/or experiences (read memory) are available either, so I hope you know everything you'll need to for every encounter.
I don't know but I usually find lots of ways to dispel any of the min/maxing some you guys throw about like its everyday game tactics. The GM/Player dynamic is the ultimate balancer in any game and no GM should sit by while any character tries this stuff and thinks that the RAW is the end all of a game session.
Hmm after thinking about some of what was said about Wards I have a question about whether the following is possible. (I think that it is under the current Ruling.)
Ice Flare a mage with way too much time on her hands uses a Quickened Levitate to suspend several Crystals 2 meters in the air to form a Ward's Bounderies/Anchor. (I suppose she could just stick the Levitate spell into a Focus, but that doesn't quite have the same 'rich powerful wizard feel' that she's going for.)
With this set up, she now has a Ward that she can move as she wishes provided that the Quickened Levitate doesn't get popped right? (I'm assuming that she'd use a seperate Levitate spell in oder to hover within the Ward herself.)
Now could a Mage going for the 'techno' look manage the same thing using Drones?
...
Yeah, I understand that simply learning Mana Barrier would be alot easier and more realible, but it doesn't have the same "Wow Factor".
Disclaimer; I am NOT saying that movable Wards are broken, in fact I rather like the FAQ's Ruling, just wondering if this idea had any holes that I haven't considered.
Ice Flare a mage with way too much time on her hands uses a Quickened Levitate to suspend several Crystals 2 meters in the air to form a Ward's Bounderies/Anchor. (I suppose she could just stick the Levitate spell into a Focus, but that doesn't quite have the same 'rich powerful wizard feel' that she's going for.)
With this set up, she now has a Ward that she can move as she wishes provided that the Quickened Levitate doesn't get popped right? (I'm assuming that she'd use a seperate Levitate spell in oder to hover within the Ward herself.)
Now could a Mage going for the 'techno' look manage the same thing using Drones?
...
Yeah, I understand that simply learning Mana Barrier would be alot easier and more realible, but it doesn't have the same "Wow Factor".
Disclaimer; I am NOT saying that movable Wards are broken, in fact I rather like the FAQ's Ruling, just wondering if this idea had any holes that I haven't considered.
| QUOTE |
| Now could a Mage going for the 'techno' look manage the same thing using Drones? |
As described by Synner, yes. If all of your drones can maintain precise distances from one antother they can be used to mark both the anchor and the limits of the ward. This is going to be so fragile that you're just asking to be screwed with...
| QUOTE (Ravor) |
| Ice Flare a mage with way too much time on her hands uses a Quickened Levitate to suspend several Crystals 2 meters in the air to form a Ward's Bounderies/Anchor. (I suppose she could just stick the Levitate spell into a Focus, but that doesn't quite have the same 'rich powerful wizard feel' that she's going for.) |
I'm inclined to say sorry. I'm not of the opinion that a single levitate spell could affect multiple distinct objects such as crystals. You'd need an individual levitate for each crystal, then getting them to move in unison... Probably problematic.
Besides I think what you're looking for is a quickened Mana Barrier spell....
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| Concrete and plasticrete floors (not walls) in modern corporate skyscrapers, secure areas of buildings, high tech research labs, etc tend to average between 30-50 cms thickness more if you have significant ventilation and wiring systems - which is close enough for me. |
Maybe if you include the beams. However that will only apply to about 5% of the square footage of any floor. The odds of any given point being more than 8" thick (20cm) is pretty low. Future construction designs will be, if anything, thinner than current. The laws of material science are pretty clear and the only way flooring would be thicker was if something somewhat weaker than concrete+steel was also significantly cheaper.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.