This may be a stupid question, but...
Does a magic type person that takes less than a point of both bioware and cyberware lose 2 pts. of Magic? For example, if a magicy person gets both a datajack and 1 lvl of cerebral booster lose 2 pts of Magic?
Full Version: Magic loss clarification
Not anymore. The errata "fixes" it so that you add the penalties together before subtracting it from your Magic Attribute which then gets rounded down. So if you have Enhanced Articulation (0.6 Bio) and a Datajack (0.2 Essence), that's -0.8 to your Magic (Magic 6 becomes Magic 5.2, which gets rounded down to Magic 5).
Note that the above is just for example purposes. Bio Index is actually cut in half for these purposes (so the Enhanced Articulation would only be -0.3 to Magic, not -0.6).
Bah. I suck at explaining things anymore.
Note that the above is just for example purposes. Bio Index is actually cut in half for these purposes (so the Enhanced Articulation would only be -0.3 to Magic, not -0.6).
Bah. I suck at explaining things anymore.
Used to be that they lost a point of Magic since their Essence went down to five from the datajack and they also virtually lose a Magic point thanks to Bio Index for the cerebral booster. The FAQ however offers the optional rule of having the bioware cost straight Essence rather than Bio Index. Subject to GM approaval of course. 
Edit: Funk beats me to it.
Edit: Funk beats me to it.
The FAQ is out of date. The Errata is more accurate, since any reprints now follow that of the Errata. So no, you do not lose 2 Magic for bits of cyber and bits of Bio. It is now Canon, not just subject to GM approval.
wow. that makes biowear a real wrort for mages. now you can geasa the loss away, and its only half as much. nasty.
Edward
Edward
Yup, Synaptic Accelerators are a Mage's friend now :o)
Well, a really rich mage's friend at least. And still pales compared to a 15,000 nuyen focus and 2 Karma for a spell and bonding.
Trauma Dampers, on the other hand, were great beforehand. Now they're practically a "must have" for any magician who runs the shadows/expects to run into danger on a regular basis.
Trauma Dampers, on the other hand, were great beforehand. Now they're practically a "must have" for any magician who runs the shadows/expects to run into danger on a regular basis.
Oh I agree. Though I'm a little mystified how 15k and 2 Karma is gonna do you much more than buy you a spell forumla and learn it at F2 :o)
Sustaining foci are a pain, and to be honest, I'd rather spend the money on stuff like that rather than precious Karma, which has soo many more uses :o)
Sustaining foci are a pain, and to be honest, I'd rather spend the money on stuff like that rather than precious Karma, which has soo many more uses :o)
| QUOTE (Canid13 @ Oct 21 2004, 07:20 AM) |
| Oh I agree. Though I'm a little mystified how 15k and 2 Karma is gonna do you much more than buy you a spell forumla and learn it at F2 :o) |
1 Karma to get Increased Reflexes +3D6 at Force 1. 1 Karma and 15,000 nuyen to buy and bond a Force 1 Sustaining Focus. BAM! +3D6 Initiative to a Synaptic Accelerators +2D6 at, what, 200,000 nuyen? Going with the 5,000:1 ratio, that's a total cost of 25,000gp for the focus.
| QUOTE |
| Sustaining foci are a pain, and to be honest, I'd rather spend the money on stuff like that rather than precious Karma, which has soo many more uses :o) |
I tend to agree, but 2 Karma for +3D6 to initiative is well worth the investment. If I have the extra cash around, I'd still rather go with a Reusable Anchoring Focus that I can turn on and off on a whim without having to worry about recasting the spell. And once you have Masking, even at Grade 1, it's pretty tough for anyone to even notice you have one.
Minor Nitpick Doc: While the need to recast a spell with a reusable anchoring focus is subject of debate (and I'm more than willing to go with you on that issue), there's one thing that cannot be changed: Anchoring foci with a linked spell are dual natured regardless of the focus currently being active or not ...
Oh right Doc. I've not actually looked into getting one for a character so didn't know the costs etc. Still, 200k for +2d6 initiative, isn't so bad when you consider it's there all the time, won't ever cause drain and doesn't require an exclusive complex action to start up :o)
| QUOTE (Cochise @ Oct 21 2004, 07:31 AM) |
| Minor Nitpick Doc: While the need to recast a spell with a reusable anchoring focus is subject of debate (and I'm more than willing to go with you on that issue), there's one thing that cannot be changed: Anchoring foci with a linked spell are dual natured regardless of the focus currently being active or not ... |
Is it? Well crimony, that would be the reason I used to hate them, then. For the life of me I couldn't remember why when I was reading over those rules a few months ago.
Now Anchoring resumes its role of the old "I'm not wasting Karma on that crap" home. 
| QUOTE (Canid13) |
| Oh right Doc. I've not actually looked into getting one for a character so didn't know the costs etc. Still, 200k for +2d6 initiative, isn't so bad when you consider it's there all the time, won't ever cause drain and doesn't require an exclusive complex action to start up :o) |
I tend to play magicians more often than not, and from personal experience it's pretty much a non-existant issue once you get Masking. Up until then you'll have to turn it off and recast (where you just put most of your dice into the Drain Resistance Test rather than the Spellcasting Test) every now and again, but not so often as to be a serious nuissance.
I'm playing my first mage now, and with only 60 karma under his belt, I've concentrated on new spells and the odd skill increase.
Masking is next, plus some cyber and bio to make him a little tougher. He's a Wolf shaman, and doesn't like not being able to go toe to toe with a ganger armed with a sword :o)
Masking is next, plus some cyber and bio to make him a little tougher. He's a Wolf shaman, and doesn't like not being able to go toe to toe with a ganger armed with a sword :o)
Canid13 is correct, you can not turn an anchoring focus on and off at a whim. Once turned off or taken off, it requires recasting the spell to prepare it again.
| QUOTE (OurTeam) |
| Canid13 is correct, you can not turn an anchoring focus on and off at a whim. Once turned off or taken off, it requires recasting the spell to prepare it again. |
As I said: That's subject of heavy debate
The re-linking of a spell is only required when the contained spell is broken or ended. However, the general description of anchoring foci (which isn't repeated in the section on the anchoring technique) says, that an anchoring focus is capable of keeping spells "alive" without ending them. So turning the focus off, will stop the spell effect without actually ending the spell. And turning it on again, will reestablish the effect. But this will only work for sustained spells. Spells instant duration actually end after they take effect. Same goes for permanent spells, once they are sustained until their effect becomes permanent ...
I think the book is very clear on it.
| QUOTE (MITS.71 @ right column, 2nd paragraph) |
| All spells, including sustained spells, linked to reusable anchors must be re-linked after each use. |
I think this passage is very hard to misinterpret, and I think all the other passages can be interpreted the same as this.
Yeah, that posed a problem for my group too. The current shaman uses a lot of sustaining foci, and the player wanted to convert them into anchoring foci. But finding out the spell had to be recaste was a bit of a bummer to him.
Perhaps if the drain resistance test were to be made every time the focus was activated, and the linking test (and assiciated drain) but not the spell itself being recaste?
Perhaps if the drain resistance test were to be made every time the focus was activated, and the linking test (and assiciated drain) but not the spell itself being recaste?
at that point is it worth the effort, the main advantage anchoring had over sustaining in 2nd ed was the simple ability to pay drain in advance. now you don't get that, where is the advantage
| QUOTE (OurTeam) |
| I think the book is very clear on it. |
And I'm very positive that this isn't as clear as you think
| QUOTE (MITS.71 @ right column, 2nd paragraph) |
| All spells, including sustained spells, linked to reusable anchors must be re-linked after each use. |
Note the emphasized words: What exactly defines "after each use"?
The use of the focus? Then why isn't that sentence to be found under the heading of "Using an Anchoring Focus" but under "Effects of Anchored Spells" ?
So I'd guess that it references the "use" of the spell in question.
But when does the use of a spell end? Normally when the spell is ended by it's caster or is broken due to other reasons (Dispelling, Deactivation of a sustaining focus due to deactivtion on owner's behalf or loss of contact with the subject of the spell)
So now we do have to ask: Does the deactivation of an anchoring focus break a spell, like the deactivation of a sustaining focus?
And here's what MitS says to that:
| QUOTE (MitS @ p 45, left colum, Anchoring Focus) |
| An anchor maintains a spell just like a sustaining focus, but it can be turned on and off without breaking the spell.Spell anchors can also "store" spells, holding them inactive until the anchor is activated |
So this leads at me to one conclusion:
Once you link a spell to a spell anchor, the spell has not been actually cast. When you activate the spell, it is cast as per rules and causes drain accordingly. What happens next depends on a) focus type, b) spell duration and c) what is done with the focus:
Non-reusable foci stop working, regardless of b) and c), so we'll only deal with re-usable anchors ...
Instants spells do end instantly, thus they will always have to be re-linked after their use
Sustained spells do end when the caster ends it or when it's broken. Now one condition of breaking the spell would be turning off the focus. However this one condition explicitly doesn't break the spell => If you turn off the focus the spell will not end, it will just switch to an inactive state, but no need for re-linking at that point. Any other instance that ends or breaks the spell will however lead to the re-link process.
Permanent spells also end once the effect has become permanent => re-linking will be needed there as well ...
| QUOTE |
| It may be possible to have two different interpretations of other parts of the Anchoring description, but I find it very difficult to see two interpretations of the above. |
I'm pretty sure that I can have a very different interpretation on that sentence
I just presented it
| QUOTE (Kremlin KOA) |
| at that point is it worth the effort, the main advantage anchoring had over sustaining in 2nd ed was the simple ability to pay drain in advance. now you don't get that, where is the advantage |
The advantage is having the spell not active until you want it to be. Many a face would dislike showing the Glow of an Armor Spell all the time, but when the drek hits the fan I'm sure he'd love to have a Ring of Protection (an anchored focus).
okay Ourteam but if I take the drain when I turn the thing on... the ONLY remotely viable use is the detect bullet/bullet barrier combo.
Well Cochise just convinced me.
Moves Anchoring up from near dead last to reasonably useful. Still have issues with the dual nature thing tho.
Moves Anchoring up from near dead last to reasonably useful. Still have issues with the dual nature thing tho.
| QUOTE (Kremlin KOA) |
| okay Ourteam but if I take the drain when I turn the thing on... the ONLY remotely viable use is the detect bullet/bullet barrier combo. |
It's really only useful for non-magicians.
for my melee physmage, i think i've come up with the perfect use for anchoring. when the Melee Sense spell (melee-only version of Combat Sense) detects an incoming melee attack, it kicks off the Draw Weapon spell (does exactly what it sounds like), so that the physmage is ready to counterattack with her weapon, instead of relying on her unarmed skills. as long as she's not surprised (~16 perception dice and 12 surprise dice, surprise isn't often an issue), she'll probalby spank anybody that throws a punch.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.