The topic and description essentially say it all, but with my refamiliarisation with the Shadowrun rules I noted that they've left out the Spell Lock. Instead the Sustaining Focus (IIRC) takes up it's slot, once again keeping magic in the hands of the mages et al., a feature I'm not entirey sure that I like. (Perhaps a stand over from the time when I was going to play around with a 'prehistory' version of SR before ED was published...)
So for those in the know, why were they removed?
As always, many thanks...
Kage
Full Version: SR2 to SR3: What happened to Spell Locks...?
Mundanes can have spells locked on them via the Quickening metamagic technique. Of course, I don't know much about spell locks, so it may not be a very close approximation.
First off, I'm not "in the know".
I'm going to speculate that spell locks (which allowed any spell cast into them, at any Force, to be turned on and off at will, w/o further Drain, at a cost of only 1 karma to bind) were removed as being far too imbalancing. (For a parallel discussion, just take a glance through the sustained spell thread - which argues that sustained spells themselves are imbalancing.)
I'm going to speculate further that they were removed in parallel with removing the "grounding through spell foci" rule. Under SR2 rules, at least the spell lock made the PC using it vulnerable to having a spell ground through it: balancing risk against benefit. With the new revision, that option is gone.
I'm going to speculate that spell locks (which allowed any spell cast into them, at any Force, to be turned on and off at will, w/o further Drain, at a cost of only 1 karma to bind) were removed as being far too imbalancing. (For a parallel discussion, just take a glance through the sustained spell thread - which argues that sustained spells themselves are imbalancing.)
I'm going to speculate further that they were removed in parallel with removing the "grounding through spell foci" rule. Under SR2 rules, at least the spell lock made the PC using it vulnerable to having a spell ground through it: balancing risk against benefit. With the new revision, that option is gone.
A Sustaining Focus is simply a Spell Lock with a different name. And 3rd edition adjusted some of the rules, presumably to make them less munchkin. My Shaman no longer has a Spell Lock with Combat Sense 33 successes or Tiger Form 18 Successes available to her.
As you've probably read: force of spell is limited to the rating of the focus, the owner casts the spell into the focus each time she places it on a physical object or being and activates it, and it is deactivated either by the owner at will or by someone physically removing it from the object or being.
As you've probably read: force of spell is limited to the rating of the focus, the owner casts the spell into the focus each time she places it on a physical object or being and activates it, and it is deactivated either by the owner at will or by someone physically removing it from the object or being.
Dear gods, were spell locks unbalanced in 2nd ed....
It didn't help that there were Improve Attribute +4 spells, that always gave you a +4 so long as you got one success; all you needed was the spell at force 1. When a mage has 6 different Increase Attribute +4 spells locked on, combined with an Increase Reactions and Increase Reflexes spell, combined with an Enhance Aim spell, all without needing to worry about Focus addiction.... well, you see how ugly it could get.
For 1 karma, you could have an attribute almost permanently increased by +4. Or, you could have a huge (non-glowing) armor spell locked on. Since spell locks worked independant of force, you could permanently sustain a force-20 spell, all for 1 karma. Not good for game balance, I can assure you.
It didn't help that there were Improve Attribute +4 spells, that always gave you a +4 so long as you got one success; all you needed was the spell at force 1. When a mage has 6 different Increase Attribute +4 spells locked on, combined with an Increase Reactions and Increase Reflexes spell, combined with an Enhance Aim spell, all without needing to worry about Focus addiction.... well, you see how ugly it could get.
For 1 karma, you could have an attribute almost permanently increased by +4. Or, you could have a huge (non-glowing) armor spell locked on. Since spell locks worked independant of force, you could permanently sustain a force-20 spell, all for 1 karma. Not good for game balance, I can assure you.
Just an FYI, as a 'munchkin' type character, Sustaining Foci are alot more powerful than Locks. Sure, you can't turn them on and off at will, that kinda bites, but you also have a safer Foci. The Karma cost is a factor in resisting Wards and dispellings. Admittedly it's nice they can't go grounding spells into Foci now like in 2nd ED, that would have made the Sustaining Foci even better still. Nonetheless, give me a Sustaining Foci any day. Another great thing is you end up with more Spell Points than 2nd edition, since you don't roll dice based on your Force in a spell. This gives you more Spell Points since you don't need such high force spells anymore for spells where the number of successes don't matter.
Anyhows, I'll take Sustaining Foci anyday over the Locks, all you lose is the aility to turn them off/on at will, and truth be told, I don't mind casting repeatedly for the resistance the Focus now has.
Sphynx
Anyhows, I'll take Sustaining Foci anyday over the Locks, all you lose is the aility to turn them off/on at will, and truth be told, I don't mind casting repeatedly for the resistance the Focus now has.
Sphynx
Yes, but the Karma cost for the equivalent bonus is much higher since Sustaining Focus are pretty useless at Force 1 (and easy to kill to boot).
Exactly, it's the higher karma cost that makes it more powerful. Ever try to kill a Spell Lock in 2nd Ed? You could almost do it on accident just by manaballing someone. 
Sphynx
Sphynx
I do miss the good old days though when I could send my little security mage after the mage, blow his spell lock, and take out damn near the entire team with one fireball. So much fun...
The Abstruse One
The Abstruse One
Hmmmm, you know, I cannot find any mention of a Spell Lock possessing some kind of switch, at least not in 1E rulebooks concerning magic. Guess that was implemented in 2E.
It always was one of the balancing factors of running around with an Armor 6 spell...you were a beacon on the Astral, and a conduit for all kinds of nasty drek from opposing mages to boot. AND that thing had a permanent Rating of 1, so it was gone in a flash, usually with the person wearing it
It always was one of the balancing factors of running around with an Armor 6 spell...you were a beacon on the Astral, and a conduit for all kinds of nasty drek from opposing mages to boot. AND that thing had a permanent Rating of 1, so it was gone in a flash, usually with the person wearing it
Hmmn, fairy snuff with regards to many of those answers?
But what about the concept that it is 'magic for the mages'? One of the traditional fantasy concepts impossible, i.e. the ability for a mage to 'magic up' a group of adventurers to perform some task? Okay, a twee example above but the concept is in there? The concept of 'magical artefacts' to be used by non-mages...
Or would the standard answer of "Well, maybe if the mana-level is higher..." is the best response...?
Kage
But what about the concept that it is 'magic for the mages'? One of the traditional fantasy concepts impossible, i.e. the ability for a mage to 'magic up' a group of adventurers to perform some task? Okay, a twee example above but the concept is in there? The concept of 'magical artefacts' to be used by non-mages...
Or would the standard answer of "Well, maybe if the mana-level is higher..." is the best response...?
Kage
| QUOTE (Kage2020 @ Sep 7 2003, 04:44 PM) |
| Or would the standard answer of "Well, maybe if the mana-level is higher..." is the best response...? |
This isn't really an issue since a mage can always take Quickening as a Metamagic (although since you don't get those all at once any more, it might take a while) and Quicken the spells to Mundanes. It's simply been removed as an option to beginning characters and made something to work for and Spell Locks were removed as an exception to the rule that Foci don't work for mundanes.
Who knows, maybe spell locks will make a comeback in SOTA 2070?
Hmmn... That's twice that has been suggested. I really just need to see down with the book! I need to see for myself that foci can no longer be astrally targetted...
Kage
Kage
hmm, everyone talk about quickening and sustaining but forget anchoring. sure its mutch less powerful then it was in SR2 but it can still do some funny moves:) like say a magic ring that when you say the right words (just make sure they are not used in normal everyday talk!) and boom you have a armor spell around you 
i just wish that htey had a suspendd option for the sustaining spells so that you could use it more then ones without the mage having to recharge it...
hmm, did a bit of research and in sr2 the one that could turn a spell lock on and off was a magican of the same tradition as the one that made it, so a spell lock placed by a mage could not be triggerd by a shaman. and nowhere does it saythat a mundane could trigger it from what i could see. it seems that the SR3 anchoring foci have taken up some of the powers of hte spell lock and mixed it with some of SR2's anchoring metamagic. basicly the removed the ability to anchor anything (now only special foci) and the sustain and dealy times (i kinda miss them) so that the rules became a bit more streamlined. to bad they removed the ability for detection spells and actions to suspend spells but i have allready said that have i not...
i just wish that htey had a suspendd option for the sustaining spells so that you could use it more then ones without the mage having to recharge it...hmm, did a bit of research and in sr2 the one that could turn a spell lock on and off was a magican of the same tradition as the one that made it, so a spell lock placed by a mage could not be triggerd by a shaman. and nowhere does it saythat a mundane could trigger it from what i could see. it seems that the SR3 anchoring foci have taken up some of the powers of hte spell lock and mixed it with some of SR2's anchoring metamagic. basicly the removed the ability to anchor anything (now only special foci) and the sustain and dealy times (i kinda miss them) so that the rules became a bit more streamlined. to bad they removed the ability for detection spells and actions to suspend spells but i have allready said that have i not...
On not finding a "switch"
In SR2 you locked a spell, there is was, cost you 1 karma to lock the spell, it's done. Spell is on 24/7.
In SR3, you use sustaining foci. You pay more karma but that karma is spent in binding the focus to the mage, choosing which spell the focus is designed to maintain. The difference is that the focus is bound and it now has the ability to sustain whatever spell it was designed to sustain, but that doesn't mean it HAS to sustain that spell constantly, unlike in SR2 where the karma was spent "locking" the spell itself down, the karma is now spent binding the focus.
Ex: In SR2, you cast increase willpower +4, you spend 1 karma, it's locked. You now have this spell up constantly. Anything happens to that spell or the lock, your karma is essentially gone and oh well, it's a do over.
In SR3, you bind a sustaining focus of force 4 to yourself. You decide what spell this focus is designed to sustain and you're done. The focus is bound, yet there's no spell up. Now anytime you cast that spell, provided it's force it equal or lower to the rating of the focus, you may activate the focus and the focus takes over sustaining the spell. You can drop the spell anytime you want, and anytime you want to cast it again, you may re-activate your focus, allowing it to take over sustaining the spell.
Hope that helps.
Sunday.
You sure about SR2 allowing to turn spell locks on and off at will Hob? Can you direct me to that page?
In SR2 you locked a spell, there is was, cost you 1 karma to lock the spell, it's done. Spell is on 24/7.
In SR3, you use sustaining foci. You pay more karma but that karma is spent in binding the focus to the mage, choosing which spell the focus is designed to maintain. The difference is that the focus is bound and it now has the ability to sustain whatever spell it was designed to sustain, but that doesn't mean it HAS to sustain that spell constantly, unlike in SR2 where the karma was spent "locking" the spell itself down, the karma is now spent binding the focus.
Ex: In SR2, you cast increase willpower +4, you spend 1 karma, it's locked. You now have this spell up constantly. Anything happens to that spell or the lock, your karma is essentially gone and oh well, it's a do over.
In SR3, you bind a sustaining focus of force 4 to yourself. You decide what spell this focus is designed to sustain and you're done. The focus is bound, yet there's no spell up. Now anytime you cast that spell, provided it's force it equal or lower to the rating of the focus, you may activate the focus and the focus takes over sustaining the spell. You can drop the spell anytime you want, and anytime you want to cast it again, you may re-activate your focus, allowing it to take over sustaining the spell.
Hope that helps.
Sunday.
You sure about SR2 allowing to turn spell locks on and off at will Hob? Can you direct me to that page?
| QUOTE (Kage2020) |
| Hmmn... That's twice that has been suggested. I really just need to see down with the book! I need to see for myself that foci can no longer be astrally targetted... |
They can still be targeted and destroyed on the astral, it's just that you can't "ground" spells through them like you used to be able to.
All text here are quotes or paraphrased from SR2 p. 138:
The magician who creates the spell locks can activate and deactivate them at will (Simple Action).
A magician who creates the lock can give it to another of the same tradition (shamanic or hermetic) for placement and activation.
A lock is dormant until activated, though anyone who glances at it with astral perception will recognize it for what it is.
Once activated, a Spell Lock vanishes on the physical plane. A magician can only see it if he is astrally perceiving. A magician who spots an active Spell Lock can remove it. Once removed, the link [to the casting magician] is broken and the lock goes dormant. It must be re-bonded to be of any use. Any time it is rebonded a new spell can be selected.
The magician who creates the spell locks can activate and deactivate them at will (Simple Action).
A magician who creates the lock can give it to another of the same tradition (shamanic or hermetic) for placement and activation.
A lock is dormant until activated, though anyone who glances at it with astral perception will recognize it for what it is.
Once activated, a Spell Lock vanishes on the physical plane. A magician can only see it if he is astrally perceiving. A magician who spots an active Spell Lock can remove it. Once removed, the link [to the casting magician] is broken and the lock goes dormant. It must be re-bonded to be of any use. Any time it is rebonded a new spell can be selected.
I don't have the book handy, but IIRC spell locks were treated as an effective Force 3 for grounding/dispelling/targeting purposes. So, spell locks were more effective than sustaining foci of 2 or less. Granted, they cost about the same as a force-3 sustaining foci, so it balances out somewhat.
Spell Locks were Force 1.
The Abstruse One
The Abstruse One
On pg. 324 of the main book (SR3), it says:
| QUOTE |
| Spell locks have been eliminated from the game in SR3. Each spell lock a SR2 character owns may be converted to a Force 3 sustaining focus (see pg. 190), or sold for 45,000 nuyen. If players wish to have a higher-Force sustaining focus, they may increase the Force Rating at 15,000 nuyen per point (to a maximum of 6) at the gamemaster's discretion. |
Spell Locks had some advantages (lock in a spell of any Force for only 1 Karma, once activated they could not be removed, or even seen, on the physical plane), but also some severe disadvantages (extremely vulnerable astrally - since they were always Force 1; and even worse, enemy mages could use them to ground area-effect spells from the astral plane). I actually prefer sustaining foci.
On a sidenote to the now gone spell locks:
Most people consider Anchoring a more or less useless metamagical technique due to re-linking issues and the re-occuring drain (potentially in situations where the mage who created the anchor is not prepared for the drain). But to me it seems that there's a little loophole:
Most people consider Anchoring a more or less useless metamagical technique due to re-linking issues and the re-occuring drain (potentially in situations where the mage who created the anchor is not prepared for the drain). But to me it seems that there's a little loophole:
| QUOTE |
| MitS, p. 45, Anchoring Foci: 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 you could link for example an invis spell to the anchor. Then you activate the anchor as such. Now the achoring focus sustains that spell. You could turn of the focus now, but the spell is not broken according to this paragraph. So it's still existing, but simply doesn't provide its spell effect. Now reactivate the focus and your spell is back.
Oh, I know that the rules also say that a spell has to be re-linked after each use, but:
| QUOTE |
| MitS, p. 71, Using an Anchoring Focus:Once the spell is linked to the anchor, the anchor is active and can be triggered |
Now here's alittle problem with the words "anchor" and "active". The focus as such isn't yet active, it's just that the spell is "ready for use". But let's have a look at the next few lines:
| QUOTE |
| The owner of an anchor can "override" any trigger while touching the anchor, turning the spell on and off at will. Other users must use the trigger anchor's trigger to activate the spell. |
So the designed trigger (or the owner's will) turns off a spell, but what about the focus as such? The first quote said that the focus can be turned off without ending / breaking the spell.
Next we have:
| QUOTE |
| Whenever the anchor is triggered, the owner must make a Drain Test for the spell that is "cast" |
Now this says that Drain must be resisted, when the spell is cast by the focus, which is usually when the anchor is triggered.
The next paragraph in MitS deals with effects of Anchored Spells:
| QUOTE |
| Anchors are normally used for sustaining spells, as are sustaining foci. The spell, once cast, is sustained by the anchor until it is turned off ... |
Now this part is also interesting, because it's not clear whether "it" refers to the focus or the spell. Normally I'd go for the focus, since they're compared to sustaining foci, but then again we do have the paragraph on 45 (see above) that says that the focus can be turned off without breaking the spell.
This leaves us with the final part on anchoring foci, which says:
| QUOTE |
| All spells, including sustained spells, linked to reusable anchors must be re-linked after each use. |
This would then only be true if a spell is actually ended, once the anchor was triggered.
Comments?
That's an excellent eval Cochise, and falls in line with how we run things in our game. After all, the negative of Anchoring is the need for Foci and Foci Addiction IMHO. There's no way anyone would learn Anchoring in the popular belief of how Anchoring works.
Sphynx
Sphynx
As a side note, if you don't like the rules... change 'em.
I don't like the idea of saying they don't exist after two editions and multiple novels of having spell locks. It just doesn't look good and it doesn't make sense. It makes more sense for the sustaining foci to be a new development.
I allow both in my game as they both have thier pros and cons. Keeps it simple and I don't have to rewrite every freakin story either.
I don't like the idea of saying they don't exist after two editions and multiple novels of having spell locks. It just doesn't look good and it doesn't make sense. It makes more sense for the sustaining foci to be a new development.
I allow both in my game as they both have thier pros and cons. Keeps it simple and I don't have to rewrite every freakin story either.
It's a good evaluation of anchoring, Cochise. The only thing that I would add (and you probably didn't mention it because it's so obvious) is that an active anchoring focus can turn a spell "on" and "off" without breaking the spell, but deactivating the focus (after the spell has been activated) would break the spell. So, for example, if you were using an anchoring focus linked to an improved invisibility spell, you would be able to turn invisible and visible at will, but you would still have an active focus, and have to watch out for things like wards.
| QUOTE (Reaver) |
| As a side note, if you don't like the rules... change 'em. I don't like the idea of saying they don't exist after two editions and multiple novels of having spell locks. It just doesn't look good and it doesn't make sense. It makes more sense for the sustaining foci to be a new development. I allow both in my game as they both have thier pros and cons. Keeps it simple and I don't have to rewrite every freakin story either. |
That's a good point. But to balance the spell lock, you've got to allow grounding through astral links (which I always liked anyway).
I may add that to my campaign, now that I think of it. It doesn't conflict with any other rules I can think of.
| QUOTE (Glyph) |
| It's a good evaluation of anchoring, Cochise. The only thing that I would add (and you probably didn't mention it because it's so obvious) is that an active anchoring focus can turn a spell "on" and "off" without breaking the spell, but deactivating the focus (after the spell has been activated) would break the spell. So, for example, if you were using an anchoring focus linked to an improved invisibility spell, you would be able to turn invisible and visible at will, but you would still have an active focus, and have to watch out for things like wards. |
That's one of the things that really bugs me.
I'm perfectly aware that a deactivated focus that continues to sustain a spell (but removes the spell effect) would be somewhat inconsistant with the rest of the rules.
But there are two things why I would still prefer the focus having that trait:
Along with the re-occuring drain and necessity of re-linking a spell, once a spell is ended, one of the major problems with anchoring foci are astral barriers.
If I allow the focus to be turned off without ending the spell, the owner of the anchor can pass through the barrier on the physical plane without any problems and can reactivate it without any further problems. If I go with what you just described, the still active focus would remain the same problem as if the spell in the anchor was still turned on and there would be any significant difference to a sustaining focus. Even worse: It would take the mage serious time to get his invis spell sustained by a focus again.
Either way, I have to deal with balance issues. If I allow the focus to be deactivated without ending the spell, we're very close to what spell locks used to be. If I go with the second solution, the anchor is still a very very expensive toy (karmic costs) and its usefullness would be in doubt again when compared to a normal sustaining focus. And that's one of the things I really don't like about even more common interpretation of how anchors work in SR3 (where the anchoring focus is not even allowed to turn on and off the spell, once it has been triggered without automatically forcing the mage to relink the spell).
The second thing why I'd go the "deactivate focus without ending the spell" solution, is the fact with the way you just described the anchor, I'd also create the basis for taking the part about the anchor being "active" once the spell is linked literal and thus making the anchor a constantly astrally active enchantment that subsequently loses any real advantage it might have had in comparison to the normal sustaining focus.
~This seems to require some serious thinking, before introducing it into my games~
Just make sure that regardless of what wording you use, if there's a spell in the focus that can be turned on, it counts against the foci count for Focus Addiction. As long as you do that, it should be balanced, IMHO. Then it's basically just a Sustaining Focus that can be turned off/on.
Sphynx
Sphynx
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.