Okay, here's the deal. You have no clue how old I am. I have no clue how old you are. I'm inclined to beleive that you are, indeed, as old as you claim, however much your ramblings contradict it. For all I know you're a fifteen year old kid who just heard about SR and wanted to get in on the action. I didn't even bother to check your join date, I don't care. You, similarly, have no bloody clue as to my age, sex, or anything else. All you have to go on is the same I have to go on, writing style and apparant intelligence. You are showing the capacity to write and respond to criticism, even if you seem to lack the ability to understand logical reasoning, which tells me that you are at least in high-school (though you might be a precocious elementary-school kid). Now, were you old enough to be my grandfather (possible, but highly unlikely), then I suppose you could take that as an insult, but I would really rather you try to understand my point of view here.'

So, now that we won't be attempting to out-old each other, let's continue on to your rediculous commentary, shall we?

1) You said you don't give a damn, then you say you do (and apparantly you want the rules errata'd with your particular houseruling, which I shall bring up again later). That's a contradiction, but one of the least of your transgressions.

2) Of course you're unimpressed, you have failed to understand (or perhaps read) the many posts that preceeded your entry into this discussion, or the ones that came after (other than, of course, to attack them without making a point of your own). I wouldn't expect you to be impressed by something that has so obviously gone over your head (apologies for the personal attack, but that's exactly what it seems has happened). It IS an outrageous statement that you will show us we're wrong. Made even more outrageous by your inability to back it up.

3) I saved the post because I thought it hilarious, an exercise in fallacy. I admit I didn't want you to change your post, but that's because it would have been such a waste of good material. As to why you're here, well, from what you've been doing, it appears you ARE here to bicker (pimply faced kid or not, that's exactly what you're doing, and what you've been doing since you started this rampage).

4) Well, here's the grandfather quote, as well as an assertion that I should not worry about you getting picked on. Alright then. I won't. Instead of trying to be a nice guy and giving you the benefit of one huge doubt, I'll assume you're just an idiot who thinks he can get more respect online by claiming to be old. No, I'm too mature for that, I'm sorry. I'll save the name calling for others who care less than I. I'll try to limit myself to obviously deserved slights.

5) . . . Stop it. Just . . . stop trying to prove my faith in you wrong. A levitate spell is capable of lifting virtually any item not nailed down. That's more than one 'thing' therefore a Levitate spell is capable of lifting 'things'. Only one of these 'things' at a time, yes, but 'things' nonetheless. Learn how to converse.

6) Yes, yours are straw men. And it isn't so much a lame argument, as it is a true one. And, I might add, completely irrelevant to the point I made.

7) I'll defer to others on this point, they have said it better than I would. As to the 6 levitate spells . . . stop with the straw men already! The number of spells sustained is irrelevant to the discussion.

8 ) I'm pretty sure nobody here agrees with everything canon, but most of us agree that any relevant discussion of the rules has to be based in canon, otherwise we're in houserule hell territory. As to your position being supported by canon... no, you beleive that canon should support your argument. As noted earlier, you want your houserule on sustaining foci/multiple sustained spells to be made canon via errata. That does not mean canon backs you. Actually, as noted so many times in this thread, your position is not supported by canon.

9)

I should also point out that streching the claim that directing the effects of a levitate spell does not incur TN mods to 6 sustaining foci and and an aerial ballet is an almost textbook example of the aforementioned straw man fallacy, but that only seems to provoke you to respond as if you have been personally attacked. This is why I decided to take up that argument as well rather than dismissing it as tangental and ludicrous, which it is.

Rory: If you truly want to come to a conclusion to this debate, adress one of the many answers you have gotten that have said approximetly the following:

A focus sustains a spell, so there is no way you would get a penalty for sustaining the spell. That penalty comes from sustaining, which you are not doing. However, if you were to do something complex using the spell, like orchestrating an arial ballet, then the target number is set by the GM. If you are the GM and you consider that a hard thing to accomplish (and I would tend to agree with you, puting me at odds with Eyeless Blond) then you simply give that task a high TN, and make it an exclusive complex action. This is the way most people here see it. It´s perfectly allright for any individual GM to rule how difficult a task should be. So your examples are really no problem for a GM to handle within the rules, and they can be handled in accordance with that GM's view on common sense.

I haven´t been a big part of this discussion, so I view myself as an outside observer of sorts. And I can tell you feel cornered and missunderstood. God knows I know it´s easy to get into that situation. Even if you start to lighten up in that situation, it´s hard to get others to stop attacking everything you say. Never the less, it seems to me that you´re mostly the one to blame for the way this thread has turned out. It was probably not your intention, but anyway you need to lighten up.

As to the 6 man ballet. I ask this:

Can you picture 6 people, floating through the air how the ballet should look?

Yes? Its not that hard to picture them up there, doing their twirls and not right? Thats how hard it is for the mage to tell the spell what to do. Thats why its trivial.

Now, what if he was sustaining all the spells? Complete with +12TN modifier and all. He still can make them do a ballet, and study calculus, sustaining that many spells is straining, but he can still ballet them till the cows come home.

Alternately, studying calculus I would argue is an exclusive action, at least, if you want to actually remember any of it when you're done.

I figured as much. I sort of suspected "at odds" was not the best phrase to use. But I could think of nothing better, because english is not my native language. And even if we were to be at odds about that issue, my argument is that in that case both of our positions would be valid. TN's are after all given copletely to the GM to decide ("by the power invested in me, I declare..."). Try to use all the modifiers you can dig up that are in the rules, but if the TN doesn´t seem right for some reason, it´s your fraggin' duty to change it. Not every situation can be covered by the rules. So there´s two arguments on this thread now.

One that´s about how difficult it would be to accomplish Rory´s aerial feats and what not. This argument has little to do with the rules, as it´s the GM´s call. You could maybe say something worthwhile with knowledge of physics or psycology or something. It would however be good if we could stop talking about it, as nobody is likely to ever have to make that call anyway.

The other has to do with if you can use a spell tossed into a focus like usual, or if it becomes frozen (so to speak). I´m going with the first option, but I see logic in the second too. This thread should come back on track. There might still be interesting arguments about this out there.

I think there's an easy analogy to make with the ariel ballet thing.

When a choreographer creates a dance, it's not the choreographer who does the dancing... the dancers do it. It's still the choreographer's dance, and what he wants is what happens... the dancers don't do any thinking, they just follow directions.

Casting levitate into a sustaining focus is like this. It follows the directions of the caster, even though the caster doesn't have to sustain the levitate spell.

I think in the case of the Arial Ballet thing, you'd cast it as normal into your 6 sustaining foci, and then make a Performance (Dance) or Knowledge: Choreography check with a TN based on how difficult the dance is, to see if they don't crash into each other.

JaronK

Alright guys, as it happens, I was the caster in question about this spell. I picked the focus off an elven spell slinger, and bound it to levitate. Alright. Good so far. I never really intended for that to turn into a heated debate that turns dumpshock into another livejournal. (Calm down Sharaloth.) Can't we all just say that the rules specified in (Insert source book here) aren't exactly clear enough on how levitate works, what it can and can't do, and that we all have no idea what the hell we're talking about?

Thought so.

Now, with that out of the way, why don't we disregard this whole thing and leave it up to the GM to call it based on houserules? Sounds good.

I just thought it would be kind of cool to be a dwarf that's 3'5" tall, 6'5" if you count the three foot gap between him and the ground. Seriously, I can hoof it for god's sake.

END.

Actually if you look over the conversation the honest debate was over awhile back, around page 2-3, where it was discovered that the spell description didn't refer to who or what was sustaining the spell to figure out who gets control over the levitation abilities, but simply refers to the caster. The rest of the thread was spent convincing a small minority that when you're looking for answerf from the canon ruleset you can't just ignore what the books say just because you don't like being wrong.

So, yes, END by all means, but let's give credit where credit is due; this is actually one case where the rules are *not* at all ambiguous, however much you want to ignore them.

Ok, I am going to ignore Sharaloth because she is not worth wasting time on and makes zero sense. I have to work long hours and do not get a chance to return here every day to respond to childish drivel.

Eyeless Blond, nobody on this thread has shown me how the TN penalty for sustaining a spell are arrived at. In a calm and rational way can you direct me anywhere in the rules that shows the TN is solely because of the effort of channeling the mana to power the spell?

It is my contention that the +2 TN penalty involved is not derived from channeling the magic and powering the spell, but because of the CONCENTRATION involved in controlling/manipulating the effects of the spell, or in other words, the actual act of USING the spell's abilities. I have not read, (THOUGH I MAY BE WRONG), anything to dispute this.

So if you follow that logic you understand why I feel there should be a +2 TN modifier for each sustained spell that requires any amount of concentration to use, no matter how trivial munchkin players attempt to make it seem.

To clear it up, I do care about the rules. That is why I am attempting to reason with everyone. But I do not care what a rule says if it needs to be changed. It being the whole point to change a broken rule. Likewise I do care what others have to say. But I did not feel that being verbally gang banged by a bunch of youngsters calling my arguments made of straw good manners either. It is funny that I've yet to ever be insulted or have that kind of language used to my face, which makes it kind of frustrating to a guy that did not grow up in the electronic age.

Now to something in particular:

TheWinningLoser, actually I am glad you pointed this little bit of munchkin loop hole out. The serious discussion may have been over before I entered the fray, but I pointed out where the books are wrong with common sense and certain egos don't like being challenged. It turned into a sore loser thread, sorry for my part of it, but I don't take well to insults.

As GM I would chose one of two courses below.

First, I would not allow spells to be sustained that required any amount of concentration or attention to change once the spell was sustained. Simply put, the focus in question was not designed for that use.

Second, if I allowed you to sustain a levitate at all you would be required to focus your concentration on varying the effects becasue it is a line of sight spell requiring you to see where you are going and requiring you to concentrate on this. Once you stop concentrating on the spell you would fall like a rock, but it would still be there if you regained conciousness before you hit the ground. Further you would receive a +2 TN to all other skill tests just as if you were sustaining the spell without the focus. The benefit to this being you would not have to pay drain to get underway once again.

Okay, first of all:

Fortune, I could have an 11 intelligence pretty easy if you allow pushing beyond racial max at double cost, and some bioware or an attribute spell. So 11 Force 1 foci is not out of reason, nor is 12 if I were a a couple of grades initiate.

Actually it is not a moot point if I wanted to cast other force 1 spells in a Force 6 focus.

It is a shame you refuse to address the glitch I pointed out in the rules though. Sustaining foci were designed to remove concentration from the spell. The levitate spell by nature requires concentration and for your eyes to be on the target at all times. The minute you look away your spell should end going by canon. it makes no sense you being able to levitate with no concentration or attention at all, and nobody pointed this out, or the line of sight issue.

Nobody is even willing to take me on with my multiple spell scenario. I guess I am right by virtue of non argument.

Nobody has agreed on what happens to the spell when you stop manipulating it either. Suddenly for instance.

If you have nothing further to say I'm not sure wy you keep posting? If you are going to keep posting I could use your help in figuring this out.

Yes, from a strict reading of Canon, 1 Sustaining Focus may sustain multiple spells of the same name.

Sustaining foci is designed to remove the penality from the concentration needed to sustain the spell. You suffer the penalty not concentrating on using the spell, but from the concentration needed to sustain the spell. Being able to levitate without the penalty from sustaining is canon. You do not need to expend any further effort to levitate unless your action requires a skill use.

Yes, LOS is usually required for sustaining, but with a sustaining focus, all is needed is for the focus to touch the subject.

What multiple spell scenario? Can you be more specific? If you do not, I assume that you are wrong by non argument.

I'm restricting myself to the issues which can be debated rationally, without wasting my time by reiterating everything that has already been brought up on your use of fallacious logic. You have proven yourself to be singularly incapable of grasping the basis of the straw man fallacy.

You say that utilising the spell is what imposes the +2 TN, because you are manipulating mana.

That negates the benefit of sustaining foci for ANY spell, because a sustaining foci locks the spell, and as such, your armour spell remains stationary, entirely. You can't move, because that requires adjusting the flows of mana to account for your new position.

Hence, your rebuttal is invalidated, and we revert to powering the spell as the only task which the +2 target number could be derived from.

You have disagreed with this countless times, and each time, it has been an invalid disagreement which breaks down when examined.

Likewise, whether or not you have two GMs is irrelevent to whether or not your logic is flawed. You are hiding behind your assertation that canon is wrong or incomplete or both, rather than simply accept that, ACCORDING TO CANON, you are making an illogical jump. Likewise, you do not seem to accept the basic premise that CANON IS ALWAYS CORRECT IN SHADOWRUN. If you disagree with canon, you make a house rule, which is something at applies in your game, but is not canon, and is irrelevent to canon. Canon is what determines the rules of the world.

Your insistance that sustaining 'active' spells is a trivial task while sustaining passive spells is a complex task simply proves to me that you have no basis for consistency in your arguments. If you are going to insist that concentrating on using a spell is a complex task, then if you want to be consistent with other spells, you must apply an additional modifier to the tests to represent that, because the canon modifier MUST be for maintaining the spell, as indicated above by your inability to create ANY form of valid reasoning for why it is not simply powering the spell, and logic (as opposed to non-logic, fallacious logic, and guessing).

You reject the use of taking the logical conclusions of your arguments against sustaining the levitate spell as simply wrong (the 'getting shot with an armour spell') but you give no valid justification for it, and are taking the point out of context. The CONTEXT is your THEORY that powering a spell is pathetically easy and does not impose any TNs, but using the spell imposes a +2. Getting shot implies damage resistance which is using the spell.

Likewise, I am not overvaluing or undervaluing foci. I am taking foci as is written in canon, taking the spell as written in canon, and taking the modifiers as written in canon. You are undervaluing foci, and overestimating the complexity of tasks, and, as the person who is trying to oppose canon, the burden of proof falls to YOU to justify why a task is harder. Common sense is not a justification, it is an attempt to avoid delivering a justification, typically because you cannot explain one, occassionally because of laziness.

Likewise, I am not contradicting myself. 'Concentrate freely' means simply that. The spell remains until the caster disables the focus. He now has telekinetic abilities over that object as long as the focus remains in contact with it. He can go do anything he wants, come back, and he still has the ability to manipulate it. He can spend a few hours in a harem indulging in hours of behaviour which is not considered polite to mention in society. It doesn't matter, the spell is still there when he comes back. Because there is no TN or test assigned to utilizing the ability, then it is a task like waving or chewing gum or giving someone who will not listen to reason the finger.

And again with the straw man fallacy. GIVE UP ON THE STRAW MEN. They only weaken your position. You CANNOT negate any argument with straw men.

Now, considering the 'cruise control'... NO ONE HAS SAID THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO CONCENTRATE TO USE THE ABILITY GRANTED BY ANY SPELL. NO ONE. EVER. You can't get over the fact that according to canon, there is no penalty for it. Tough. That's your problem. House rule it. Quit trying to insist canon is wrong because you can't understand it.

Now.. as for your 'simple' refutation of my last point....
You are being inconsistent and changing your argument. What you said in your "rebuttal" is that you aren't using a +2 TN for using the spell. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO USE THE ENTIRE TIME, INSTEAD OF +2 FOR SUSTAINING THE SPELL. If you can't keep your arguments consistent, then give up.




Now... consider this. When you're trying to teach a mule, you hit it on the head with a 2x4 first to get it to pay attention to you. If the mule never does, you sell it to the glue factory, because it's useless.

I'm sick of breaking 2x4s.

Note for everyone else: Yes, I've finally reached a point where I need to vent some frustration. I'm normally fairly calm even when in disagreements -- but sometimes, it's just not worth it. I am not a teacher, nor will I ever be a teacher. I do not have the patience of a saint. To those who have listened, I'm sorry if my temper has spoiled my image in your minds.

The heart of the arguement.

The straw man fallacy is to take an argument and instead of forming a counter-argument for that original argument, to take an argument which is similar but easier to refute, and attack that instead.

Your arguments have all been that 'it doesn't work at high enough numbers'. High enough numbers reaches the point where it is reasonably beyond all but the best caster's ability to create when not using sustaining foci, and when using sustaining foci would logically result in burning out -- if the caster even had stats that high. The fact that the stats are theoretically possible to get at is irrelevent. Much like using 'every character could have body 11 or better' as an argument for something. That is why your arguments have all been straw men.

Common Sense would indicate that when a large number of people who are presumably either GMs or players, but have a large amount of collective experience disagree with your interpretation about the rules, that your interpretation is not supported by canon.

Likewise, "Common Sense" is not common. It's the derived form of judgement based upon your values, typically as a child. It's always different, fundamentally not measurable, and, most importantly, not a valid premise for anything in a logical debate. What became ingrained in you in your childhood is not a justification for anything.

Rory is like Weredigo's crotchety, less likeable grandfather(either that or we've discovered Bobby Crosby, AKA 'Pupkin''s Shadowrun identity). We've ground his nose in shit until it's impacted his sinuses, and he still hasn't figured out it stinks, so why don't we just let this topic die? Everything constructive that could've been wrung out of this was wrung out three or four pages ago, although there still will be a high amusement factor if he keeps on ranting at an empty thread (especially if he claims that the lack of response means 'he wins.'). Everything he's done in the last page or two has been pointless trolling and flamebaiting, and very little is every accomplished by indulging such immature behavior.

Okay, let's try a different tack. Look at the rules in the Matrix section for monitored operations. Look at the rules where it describes action types for activating cyberware, or indeed at the rules for any type of *action*, such as observing something in detail. The rules are clear on this: doing anything or concentrating on something in Shadowrun is not measured by a TN modifier; it is measured by spending Free (or sometimes even Simple or Complex) Actions. The way I (and others) see it is the actual concentration on the spell's effects is seen in terms of actions rather than some arbitrary TN modifier that isn't supported anywhere in the book. In most cases the action is automatic and doesn't require an action, like the rest of movement is handled in Shadowrun.

This, of course, is in addition to the pages and pages of arguments which you have heretofore ignored, prefering to cling to your own reasoning at the expense of logic and common sense. It's clear that you're going to ignore this argument as well, because what you're arguing is not the canon ruleset or indeed anything that the rest of us can argue over, but only the world and system of rules that exists in your own head. Noone will ever be able to convince you because you insist on discarding the world under discussion for one that exists nowhere but in your own mind.

Someone please close this topic; it's obvious we're never going to teach Rory the fundamentals of logic without hundreds and hundreds of man-hours, and I seriously doubt that he's going to pay me the $45 an hour that I charge for private tutoring.

This thread is on the verge of being closed. Rein it in and end the personal attacks.