Way back in 1E Shadowrun, you could create an anchor as an indefinite effect -- the detection goes off, causing the effect to trigger. As long as the detection continues to 'ping', the effect would as well. In 3E and 4E, this doesn't work. Anchors are 1-shot deals, which cost 1 karma for each one you want to put on.

What I'm considering, however, is using Quickening with an Anchor. You pay the 1 karma for the anchor, and you pay the other amount of karma for any spells which are tied to it. IE, the optional detection spell which could be used to detect the incoming threat, and the reactionary spell which responds when triggered. So, if you want a mentally triggered fireball, you pay the karma for the trigger and for the quicken, and congrats. Or a detection spell plus an anti-bullet barrier.

I think the caveat I'd put in is that non-sustained spells (like combat spells) would trigger a drain each time it goes off, perhaps.

Thoughts?

I'd just get rid of the one-shot mechanic and try to find a way to add a reasonable "cool down" to the Anchoring Focus, or just requiring the Enchanter, or any magician really, to recast the spell into it to recharge it. This way you're basically exchanging Drain at an earlier date for a predetermined trigger at a later date. It's just a Sustaining Focus with a condition attached to it, so why not treat it like one?

At least that way the ridiculous Karma investment for an Anchoring Focus might actually be worthwhile. I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually use, let alone create, one in any of the games I've run or played in since the change. Well, with the exception of megacorporate CEOs and the like, but that's because it's easy to give an NPC stuff that a player wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole.

Had a couple of them in 2nd Edition, but none since then...

The point is "what should the cooldown be".
Consider that this would be very powerfull.
The spell would not cause any drain AND you would no exactly how many hits it will have AND you wouldn't need to spend any actions.

In the end, an Anchoring Focus is little more than a Sustaining Focus with a one-use on switch.

For mundanes, they're more trouble than they're usually worth. They can't defend it against astral attacks, and things like wards, imps, and FAB III are constant threats for them if not any team members who are Awakened themselves. For magicians, it just lets them 'cast' one relatively big spell courtesy of having that spell prepared and dealt with at an earlier time rather than in the here and now. The focus still costs a small fortune in both Karma and nuyen, is limited to a single spell, and just sustains that spell until it's shut off (be it purposely or by an outside source, such as a ward or attacking spirit/mage/etc.).

Considering all of the massive downsides, what's the big deal? Yeah, you get one 'free' spellcasting on a run. So what?

I mean, is Quickening horribly overpowered If not, why is Anchoring?

If I were designing them, I'd start off with the original idea: That they are pretty much just a Sustaining Focus with an on switch. Once activated, it functions just like a Sustaining Focus in all ways. Once the spell is deactivated by whatever means (intentionally or otherwise), it has to be "recharged." You can do this at any time, simply by casting the spell it was designed with 'into' it, and possibly a related Detection spell so that it knows how to be activated. If you want to limit the 'overpowered'ness of not having to deal with drain, so being able to suffer more drain and thus cast a more powerful spell, just require two subsequent Drain Tests (which I think is the default anyway). I haven't read the rules on Anchoring in a while, and I can't remember if that's included with 4th Edition's rules or not. Either way, that's about where I'd stop with it. If things proved unbalanced -- and honestly the only time I see that being the case is with Combat Spells and other offensive magicks -- I'd raise the cost a bit. And that'd be good enough for me, I think. But if it wasn't, my next stop would probably be limiting it to spells with a Sustaining requirement, and if that still wasn't enough, spells that require Sustaining and are limited to the possessor of the focus.

So yeah, ignoring those ideas for limiters, you could potentially get one really sweet Fireball out of it. But again, so what? You could just have brought a bunch of C4 and done nearly the same thing for a much cheaper (and 0 Karma) pricetag. The only difference is you could do it again the next run, assuming you had the time and desire to prepare the spell and recover the Drain. But then again, you could just buy more C4, or any other similar tactic to get a same result.

I really don't see the problem with it, beyond the "omg, that's powerful so it must be overpowered" mentality.

@Ol' Scratch
Well, it depends on. If you have astral barriers everywhere and a full grown security alarm if you breach one (with all the awakend cats, rats, etc. beeing astral security is really a shity job), it is not overpowered.
If it does not hinder you much, yes it is a bit.

I am not sure I've used Anchoring. Ever.

But this thread got me thinking: Anchoring may be useless as a technique for a Runner, due to what actually are his needs.... But how useful is it for other kinds of mages?
The academic hermetic?
The tribal shaman?
The wiz kid?
The nice old lady that heals the hurt kids on the block?
The security consultant mage?
The doctor mage?

I wonder, thinking in the whole universe of magicians that can learn the technique how many would find it useful and usable?

It really only benefits mundanes. Magicians can just use a sustaining focus and be fine with it, especially if they're not the types who normally have to worry about having a damaged Stun track and thus don't have to watch their Drain to begin with. A Sustaining Focus does just about everything they need and is far more versatile.

Actually, I can see how these would be useful in media-based Magicians... Special Effects that only go off when they're supposed to.

Anchored sustained spells remain on once triggered as though they had been quickened. Using detection spells as triggers for anchored spells requires the detection spell to be quickened, incurring further cost. An anchored spell can be mentally activated or deactivated by the creator at any time, at any range, for no cost.

Short version: sustained spells need the creator to turn them off once they start, unless you use an anchoring focus in which case it'll run down by itself. Permanent spells go once and finish; instants go off once only. Then you need to reload it with more Karma.

Pretty much all I can see anchoring used for in day-to-day is magical VIP protection (barriers or healing), or something that wiz-gangs might use for shits and giggles - Detect Bullet linked to Fireball, perhaps. Though...you could make a ton of 'yen if you wanted to make Detox or Increase Attribute anchoring foci for suits.

You know, every time I see something that I think will be a problem, and mention it here, you guys come up with something that basically says 'you missed / misread this, go back and look again'. While a bit frustrating (I feel like a complete idiot), it has been very informative, and I greatly appreciate this.

So, basically, an anchored spell with a sustained / permanent duration will trigger and then 'quicken'. An instant spell is fire and forget. That's... a hell of a lot more handy than I expected. So, if you have 'Detect Bullet' and 'Anti-Bullet Barrier' prepared, it will throw up the barrier the second the detection spell triggers, and hold the barrier there for the foreseeable future.

This... is a hell of a lot more useful than in 3E. I approve. Thanks, Mr. Clock!

Edit: Hmm, there's only one problem I've found with this. In the above example, 'Anti-Bullet Barrier' remains on. This could be a problem. In 1E, the barrier would only kick on if the detection spell triggered. Hmm... but if the detection spell is also paid for using karma, does this mean the sustained spell will only work if the detection spell works? If so, this isn't an issue. If the detection spell dissolves, then it becomes a problem. I'll need to go over the description a bit more carefully.

Don't worry, we don't think you're a complete idiot.

I won't say any more, but we don't THINK you're an idiot.

Seriously, these things are complex and hard to understand, no reasons to feel sorry for being confused. It also doesn't help that people read between the lines differently as well, so it can get even more confusing as you talk about it...

Thanks! I think...
Okay, looking this over in more detail. You quicken the detection spell and attach it to the anchor. When the detection spell triggers, the anchor goes off, allowing the spell to fire off as per what the detection spell tells it to do. If the spell is normally sustained, it remains quickened (active), until the person who created the anchor tells it to turn off. If the detection spell goes off again, the anchor goes off again. All good.

So, I'm changing my opinion of anchors for 4E. The designers did an excellent job. While the details for this are rather convoluted and hard to wrap my head around, hammering on this has helped me figure out how it works, and I'm actually impressed. It's even better than the 1E version. There's all sorts of fun I can have with this.

Awesome.

Err, no they didn't. The current rules are awful. There's next to no reason to bother with one. A Sustaining Focus does just about everything a person would need. Not sure how you're missing that point about them.

1) Costs less money.
2) Can't be stolen.
3) Deal with the drain only once, and can re-use it.
4) Can be cast on non-mages.
5) Allows the use of instant or permanent spells.
6) Can be triggered by events that you, yourself, aren't aware of.

Cast it on a weapon, so that when you hold the weapon and activate it, the weapon gains an elemental sheathing which you can then use to beat on people with. You can then suppress it at will.
Have a spell so, when you invoke it, transforms you into an animal. Release it, and you transform back.
Cast a spell on a prisoner, set a timer on it. 'You have one hour to do this. If you fail, you die'. Release the prisoner.

I don't think you can do that with sustaining foci.

You're proposing a (pretty major) house rule, right? Even if anchoring and quickening interacted to created 'self-recasting' spells, one of the laws of sorcery is that it's not intelligent. There's no "allowing the spell to fire off as per what the detection spell tells it to do", and then doing it again later. It's not smart enough to reset itself (and doesn't have the karma).

On the flipside, can't you also use the Anchored spell to track back to the Magician?

Pretty big negative if all you need is an Earth Elemental to come in and hug the Magician like Bubba the Love Troll.

No. You can't suppress it. Anchoring is a one-shot deal. Once activated, that's it. It's nothing but a sustaining focus from that point on, and only if the spell was a Sustaining or Permanent spell to begin with. And that's all Anchoring really is: A one-shot sustaining focus with an on switch (triggered either by condition or will). The spell ends when the creator desires it or it otherwise is forced to end.


Or just cast the spell and sustain it, or use a Sustaining Focus (Manipulation) which you can then use for Mind Control, Armor, Physical Barrier, and any other Manipulation spell you like. And you don't have to pay Karma every time you want to use it, either. (Which, for a magician, is a phenomenally huge deal.)


Or just use a poison, cortex bomb, or any other myriad options out there instead. That, you know, don't require a bunch of Karma and which can easily be dispelled/survived.


Again: There's a reason players rarely, if ever, use Anchoring. As it stands, it's a cruddy metamagic compared to all the other options, including its prerequisite.

Incidentally, who can explain to me the difference between an anchoring focus and a plain anchored spell? I don't quite get it. No karma to charge the focus?

Actually, I'm going by what it says in Street Magic V2. It says that you must quicken the detection spell, and that the detection spell can aim the spell that it triggers. It also says that the sustained spell can be suppressed by the mage -- so yes, it can work, if the spell is sustained. (pg 60)

"An anchor can be activated and deactivated at any time with a mental command from the construct's creator. This has no range limitation and does not count as a trigger condition."

This makes me think (along with the fact that the detection spell has to be quickened, thus making it a permanent effect), that a sustained spell can be triggered and ended. They did also say that a sustained spell is to be treated like a quickened spell -- which means it stays on.

So, if you have a quickened detection spell linked to a quickened sustained spell, and you can turn off the anchor and re-activate it...

This makes sense for an advanced metamagic.

Not necessarily. It can be activated (for the first and only time), or it can be deactivated (after it's already active). Both of those are true without also assuming the ability to *re*-activate. This interpretation is weaker, and therefore must be right. (Hehe.)

A spell in an anchoring focus falls off (focus Force) hours after it's been triggered. The original caster can also deactivate the spell by touching the focus. Using a focus would (IMO) over-ride the ability for the caster to turn it on or off at will. Also, once a spell has been deactivated, it's considered to be cleared from the focus, and so you have to re-anchor it.

Street Magic, page 84. Explains the deal.

Regarding the linkage of quickened spells to quickened spells: that's anchoring. Different way of describing it, but it's anchoring, and should be treated with the rules presented for such.

Summary: anchoring and anchoring foci are very useful things under the right circumstances. They have benefits and drawbacks. You could use an anchored Heal spell in a focus as a magical medkit, making you the proud possessor of a dual-natured object and link to the caster, or you could get bioware, or a nanohive, both of which would cost you cash and Essence and can be detected or fiddled with by technological means. The symmetry pleases me.

In SR2, my group treated Anchoring much like AD&D magic items. Our group's mage (usually me) made things like healing potions, detection potions / wands / etc. Most of these items were one shots, much like their D&D equivalent.

Made a bullet shield ring too once. That was just a ring with two spells. Detect bullets with a range 1 meter bigger than the Bullet Shield spell. That way the detector would fire off the shield before the bullet reached the target.

I was going to make a ring of regeneration (more like faster natural healing) but never got around to it.

For all the karma costs, we made use of the karma transfer rules that were used for paying karma to free spirits. That way, the one who wanted the effect paid for it. We also made the house rule that the karmic source was the signature on the item. So if our group's mundane sammy wanted a potion of healing (for deadly damage) or two, he paid the karma and the item would be a link to *HIM*, not the mage who made it.

Our main complaint at the time with Anchoring was that it only made one shot items. On the plus side, we could cast spells such that they lasted longer or shorter, depending on caster choices (by withholding dice). I don't think that rule still exists under SR4/A

I personally loathe the idea of D&D-style magic items in SR, whether potions, rings, or +1 swords. That's just full disclosure, no relevance.

That does sound like an interesting house rule, darthmord. It makes things significantly easier on the mage; if that's what the group wants, it seems like a solid method. Lacking the Karma Drain/transfer abilities, I'd probably require some kind of ritual and/or valuable consumable materials for the transfer. When things are a little difficult, they're more appreciated, and flavor is fun. Another RAW-er option is that free spirits find employment as karma brokers, taking payment in a little skimming or something. To me, that kind of fantasy-meets-economics is kinda fun.

For the 'trace to karma source' idea, I'm slightly concerned about how that interacts with the anchoring rules (caster can control at any distance) and the basic spell rules (because it intentionally alters them). It *does* make a karma/item economy more viable if the caster *can't* influence the sold item, of course. And I may still have the anchoring/anchoring focus rules wrong in my head, sorry. Do you not feel like it *should* be possible for a mage to examine Cronk's magic ring and be able to get a signature on the craftsman, though? Maybe dual signatures, mage and karma donor (though this isn't compatible with the free spirit karma broker). Heh.

I also wouldn't want the mundanes doing anything magic. That means no supernatural control of the anchored spell, for example. Clever use of detection, command words, etc. could handle that.

We only used D&D as a source for ideas for magic items. We understood that we couldn't make a +5 sword or anything like that. But for one shot items, D&D has a wealth of inspiration. Not to mention the wide variety of spells that could be ported over. The main reason it was like this for my old group was because we were a D&D group first & foremost. I got them interested in SR1 & SR2. They liked the idea of high fantasy in the near future. Guns, Tech, Elves, Dragons, and Magic... all in one place. What's not to like?

We found that being a bit more flexible with the magic made magic more accessible and fair for everyone. Ultimately, everyone ended up worrying about the same costs for advancing their magical repitoire (either innate, skill, or item based), their mundane gear, and their skills.

Once in a while, NPCs had a magic doo-dad on them (they weren't all that common for NPCs or Players). We had talked about the issue you raised of being able to tell somehow who made the item despite it being linked to the intended user of the item. We didn't have a need for it but one of the discussions revolved about possibly using Masking as inspiration for that. We only talked a little about it and did NOT write out solid rules. But the basic premise was if the item's karmic cost was paid for by another, that person's aura became the dominant one. If the person assensing the item rolled well enough to look past that (in a similar manner as penetrating Masking), then they would see the item maker's aura. That was the extent we discussed it. Never worked on it further or clarified any specific rules.

Keep in mind that if someone else paid the karma for the item to work, the mage could no longer control the item. The mage's control over it was no more or less than that of the karma donor. The worst the mage (or any other mage) could do was attempt to dispell / counterspell the item or otherwise attack it like you would an active focus. Which did lead to situations where the team wanted the mage to still be able to control certain items made (that led to a lot of horsetrading and deal making).

I agree about not allowing mundanes to perform magic (though I am a proponent of mundanes having limited use of certain Active Magic skills, like Counterspelling, Banishing, etc). Items keyed to command words, actions, etc would work simply because the Magic was tied to that mode of activation. The actual spell being cast would have been controlled by the mage at the time of casting it into the item.