I'm not going to try to hide this, so if my players are reading... Yes, I'm looking for outside help. Just to make sure, you know? Doesn't mean this is exactly what will be happening...

So my game's fairly well into act 2 of the major arc I've been building for with the last few months. One of my players just got shot to hell and back, losing an arm in the process. Well, he's wanting a cyberarm... but there is a twist.

He's a combo hacker/mage. Not the greatest at either, but very flexible. Well, these were new players to begin with, and they didn't really realize the importance of foci. So when I started throwing spirits at them fairly hard and heavy, they weren't prepared. See where this is leading?

Yes, as a LONG-TERM goal, my player wants a cyberarm with a spur that acts as a weapon focus. Unfortunately for me, I am having trouble figuring out just how hard this is to pull off. Mostly I've been focusing on the creation, like what it takes to make the blade itself, and what installing it will do. So I'm turning to you guys for help. I should also point out that if the cyberarm isn't deltaware, he'll probably lose a point of magic for falling below 5 essence. So that does make a difference.


As an aside, he has another issue where he wants an initiation group that is basically chaos mages from Street Magic, but I figure I can get that sorted out on my own. The problem I'm having right now is that I know the fluff fairly well after a decade of reading, if not running the game... But he has just been reading the rules as written. He had no clue how fucking rare/hard it was to get deltaware, for instance, when he almost begged me to have his arm get blown off due to a glitch.

You can enchant cyberware before you implant it; just use the rules in Street Magic and treat it as mundane telesma.

This comes up fairly often, even though it is not a Unique Enchantment (this term refers to magic items which are not covered by the usual focus rules).

It is, in fact, possible to enchant a cyberspur, but incurs a -4 modifier because -as AH has rightfully pointed out- it is a mundane telesma, the material least conducive to enchanting (rules for this can be found in the Magical Goods chapter of Street Magic).

This makes it likely that enchanters will use a formula that makes use of either orichalkum, exotic telesmae (cf. Street Magic, p. 83) or both.
These ingredients can either be used up in the enchanting process (hardening the newly forged blade in dragon's blood, for example) or be worked into the focus if appropriate.
The spur's blade could have runic inlays made out of orichalkum or the blade itself could be forged out of meteorite iron.

Another possibility could be to use an Aspected Enchantment, which means that one has to fullfil a specific Geas to activate the focus (use a specific phrase or gesture, for example).
See Street Magic, p. 84 for details on this technique.

All these methods can be combined with each other to further reduce the Threshold Number.

Anyone see any problems with a Mage using a nanotat as a focus?

Depends, if it is a tattoo that was created using nanites into a traditional mystical tattoo design and then enchanted (using RAW) then I would allow it as a GM. If it is a shifting nanotat I would argue that every time you shifted the design you would need to re-enchant the tattoo (using RAW) as you broke up the focus to rearrange it. This would be like taking any focus and breaking it, in RAW this dispells the magic inside the focus and makes it mundane.

You thoughts mirror my own, i just wanted to get a second opinion. Thanks
much!

Forgive my ignorance, but what is RAW?

K

Rules As Written.

Peace

The problem with tattoos as foci is :
-you cannot enchant living tissue or things already implanted in a living being, so you would have to enchant any implant or body modification before the tattooing
-once you change the form of a focus, it is broken and the enchantment vanishes- therefore, ink previously enchanted would lose it's magic properties during tattooing, as the ink changes form

A nanotat could be a workaround, as long as it is possible to enchant an individual nanite, which would be injected in one piece- but nanites deplete after time, so i don't see it as possible.

If you want a focus you can't lose and that won't be found during a search, go for piercings, 'ware or false teeth.
In the latter two cases, hope that enemy mages don't find out about your "unstealable" focus by assensing you while the focus is active- if you get captured and your enemies want to remove your focus, it may hurt.

BTW, 3rd edition had rules for magical tattoos, IIRC.
Don't know wether these where foci, though.
If they where, it's one of those things from previous editions that don't work anymore by RAW.

IIRC you had to enchant the tattoo at the same time you received the tattoo. If either the enchanter or the tattoo artist failed their checks then the enchantment was useless.

You could always do something like Teal'c from Stargate: SG-1, I suppose. Basically cut open the skin and pour in molten gold (Or even Orichalcum) to create a permanent, solid "tattoo". I imagine that though it would hurt like a mofo, you could enchant it pretty easily afterward.

Pretty distinctive, though.

Bull

Kree!

I don't run magic as something that cares about enchanting "a nanite" but more about the nanites as a whole. We do not after all enchant one molecule of the sword. However, this is just my interpretation.

BlueMax

Little late, but thanks for the replies. I was going about similarly, thinking the blade would need to be created, then enchanted, then installed. Believe it or not, they've been hauling around a fairly sizable chunk of orichalcum for a while, but using it for anything other than what they are right now would incur a terrible cost. They're essentially sitting on a nuke and don't even realize it.. until they read this of course.

I'm laying the groundwork for them to get some seriously cool shit if they are willing to sell their souls to the devil, basically.. Or is it the devil? Who knows. This would be part of that.