Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: sustain focus, can it sustain any spell?
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Dog
Umm.... what's a strawman?
Rory Blackhand
QUOTE
What is the difference between an instant spell and a sustained spell? The sustained spell is sustained and sustaining requires concentration. The strain of concentration while sustaining causes the +2 TN penalty. If the TN is from concentration in the usage of a spell, then the penalty should also apply to instant spells, but it does not.


How would we ever know this since the instant spell is cast, well...instantly...so it never has a chance to interfere with any other skill and cause a +2 TN?

QUOTE
Also if concentration is required to make use of a sustained spell, then it would mean that even if a spell sustained by a focus, the caster may not do any Exclusive actions, defeating the purpose of a sustaining focus in the first place.


Correct. So spells that require any amount....even trivial amounts of "concentration or attention" would disqualify you from doing exclusive actions. This is another point in my favor for why spells like levitate are simply not compatable with sustaining foci.

QUOTE
I am not saying that canon isn't broke. I am just pointing out what canon says. What you wish to do is your business. You could choose to interprete canon to say that the TN +2 modifier is from the concentration on the spell, even if it was sustained by a focus, I can only say that I do not read it as such and no matter how literal and strict I try to squeeze the meaning of the wording in canon, I can't find myself making such a interpretation.


Cool with me, player. At least you are not ruling out the possibility that my interpretation is just as correct as anyone elses. It is a vague part of the rules that needs attention. I agree that it sounds like the TN penalty is from the generating the mana required to power the spell, but I am not convinced it is so until I see a quote stating so explicitly. And until then my interpretation has just as much validity as anyone elses by virtue of not being proven wrong. Perhaps as a compromise it is partially the mana generation and partially the concentration required to use the effects? Nobody on this thread has proven any differently. It has all been conjecture so far.

QUOTE
I have made my feelings and opinions on your questions known already in this thread. You chose to disregard them as being irrelevant and/or wrong, even if (or even because) they follow canon.


My interpretation of the TN penalty is just as canon as yours. You have yet to produce a requested quote to the contrary. In short you have no empirical evidence to prove that the TN is from powering the spell with mana and not from using the effects of the spell. If you did, you, or others, would have gleefully produced a quote proving me wrong long ago to silence my objections.

QUOTE
You stopped asking actual questions about five pages ago, and you know it.


So you are avoiding my questions and admitting defeat, cool.

QUOTE
You call people who follow canon sheep, you state outright that you don't care what the rules say, and you're just being a total ass in general for no reason.


Actually, my interpretation of the TN penalty is just as canon as yours, nobody has produced a quote to state implicitly that the TN penalty is derived from powering a spell with mana. Sheep usually tend to flock together in herds, that so many of you blindly follow a flawed set of rules does not surprise me at all. This is exactly why a democratically elected leader like Hitler was able to lead an entire country into committing one of the worst crimes in human history. Follow your rules if you wish, but I will be thinking and questioning everything for my own. And as to being an ass, if you look back to the very beginning you will find that I have very evenly and consistently responded to every poster in the same attitude and manner they have responded to me, if you do not wish to see my ass, I suggest you put yours away.

QUOTE
You're wrong, people have been telling you you're wrong for pages, you're unable to actually say out loud "You're correct, I understand I'm wrong according to the rules," and it's hilarious to everyone but you.


Actually you are wrong or have not kept up with the thread. I have admitted being wrong at least three times that I can think of without going back to look, and have apologized for being rude at least once. You saying I am wrong though does not make it true, people telling me I am wrong for pages does not make it true either. Sometimes you have to swim against the current when you have a valid point worth stating. I am still waiting for a quote I asked for pages ago and nobody is able to produce anything more than conjecture and theory or insinuations until then it is not over.

QUOTE
Everyone else here is arguing canon and you're arguing assinine opinion.


The assinine opinion I am arguing is yours. Until proven differently I am interpreting canon concerning the TN penalties aspect of the debate.

QUOTE
Someone points out an argument of yours is fallacious, and you take it as open season to start a flame war. It's ridiculous.


No. What is ridiculous is that you assume that when someone points out something to me that they are correct. You start from a position of weakness from your own inadequacies of independent thought. Against me you will need much more than that.

QUOTE
All the actual logical rational arguments that were worth trying to use on you, other people have beat me to. You ignore them, refute them with all the rhetoric and eloquence of "NUH UH," flame whoever it is that said it, or do all of the above.


I have seen very few rational arguments being used against me. Most of it has been by flaming egoists. Some of what has been said by more respectable posters like Toturi has been quite inspiring like the fact these foci can be used out of LOS for example, which is something I will get to a bit later.

QUOTE
You're being condescending and wrong at the same time -- which only the worst internet forum-goers are capable of managing.


Who is being patronizing here? You and your smug little gang of fan boys, or me, an independent thinker just trying to clear up a rule in a game I really like?

QUOTE
and you can get back a little of the attitude you're dishing out


I can dish it out as well as take it. If you prefer a different flavor you can back off with your snide remarks. You are acting like a buffoon, and I am getting a mild laugh, at your expense. obviously you don't like it, and if I were you I wouldn't like being made into a clown either. your choice is to just stop it. I'm mostly in this thread to clear up a rule, but I have my pride, I'm a fighter, I'm not going anywhere, and I will defend myself.

QUOTE
you state over and over again you don't care what canon says


Actually, if you had been following the thread, you would know that I have already clarified that statement. I do not care what a broken rule says, it is why we are here, to fix it. I do care what canon says, absolutely do, or I wouldn't be here wading thru the shit, arguing with a bunch of foul mouthed posters like you.

QUOTE
But the +2 tn for sustaining a spell is a penalty you suffer because you are sustaining a spell. Not because you are "using the spell effects".


Sort of. You have the access to the mana which powers the spell, which is under the description of how magic works, and you have the use of the spell effects. Unless you can quote somewhere that says the TN is derived from powering the spell then I can just as easily say it is from using the effects, which is all part of sustaining a spell and equally canon. You say the +2 is from weaving the magic, I say it is from using the effects, and yes the effects are being used by the target of the spell, it doesn't matter if it is the caster or a subject, the caster must concentrate on making the spell effects happen, which causes a TN modifier regardless of who it is on.

QUOTE
Detect Enemies is a sustained spell that allows the subject to detect people who want to hurt her. The subject need not be the caster - indeed, it works better if it isn't. The caster of the spell sustains it. The subject of the spell uses the spell effects.


The caster still has to concentrate to produce those effects. On the other hand the subject of a levitate spell can't "use" those effects, which is why there must be a distinction in spells that require further attention to utilize. Do you agree with this?

QUOTE
The +2 TN modifier for Sustaining a spell (in the SR system) is therefore derived from the effort in keeping a magical effect active, not from the distraction involved in "using" the magical effect.


You haven't proven that by your current examples as I have pointed out above. You need to show me a quote that says it is so, otherwise it is just as canon to say that the +2 TN is from concentrating on using the effects on yourself or on another. Btw, I did not address your create food as it is an instant spell and would not effect any other action or skill use before it was complete.

QUOTE
The scenario you suggest, where a magician is trying to move 6 different subjects with 6 separate telekinetic manipulations, all of which are locked by sustaining foci, does not require the magician to have TN penalties for "using the spell effect", which you seem to use synonymously with "sustaining the spell" (this is an observation, not an attack).


(Thank you, I did not take it as an attack). Let me try to elaborate if I can. I am not using sustaining the spell synonymously with using the effects. I am saying that a spell like levitate requires some amount of attention to produce spell effects, ie.. lift, vector, and speed. This attention requires some concentration, which is incompatible with the stated goal of a sustaining focus. If you have to use your mind to move the object, no matter how trivial the effort (and for the record: others attempting to attack my argument have hypothesized on the degree of this effort, but NONE have shown proof to back the claims up that it is "trivial" at all) it is not conforming to a sustaining focus by virtue of it being impossible to eliminate the need for "attention or concentration" (pg 190 main book rules).

My main claim, (yes, house rule, for now, canon being broken) is that if it is impossible to eliminate 100% of concentration or effort to achieve spell effects then the spell is not allowed to be sustained by a sustaining focus, and this is not setting a precedent or game breaking rule, there ARE other spells not allowed to be sustained by a focus. Only passive spells should be allowed to be "locked" by a focus, because only passive spells meet the requirements of NO attention or concentration to use.

As a secondary claim I am saying "by current canon" it would at the minimum require a +2 TN for any other skill use while concentrating on producing spell effects like levitation which require active input second by second in order to utilize. This claim has led me to be attacked and ridiculed incessantly for no reason at all. I have tried to provide common sense applications of the spell in levitating a group of friends in an attempt to highlight how difficult the task would be.

Die hards have returned again and again to only part of the wording under sustaining foci that says there is no concentration involved in using the levitate spell in question once it is sustained by the foci. Yes it may currently be cannon that says any spell with a target can be sustained by a foci, but thru example I have shown this to be unreasonable at best, muchkin like at worse. My counter contention to these heated attacks has always been to look at the part of sustaining foci that says it eliminates the need for "attention or concentration" (pg 190 main book rules). If a spell is impossible to use without concentrating, first it precludes the utilization of "exclusive actions", and second it will be a distraction to other skill tests, canon says a spell being sustained provides a +2 TN, nowhere does it dispute the fact that it could be from "concentrating and attention" required to manipulate the spell effects, it is a sound interpretation, fully in canon, by the very fact that once sustained by a foci this TN vanishes with other passive spells.

QUOTE
SR Canon - that is to say, the Rules of the game, which you think are incomplete - do not say how difficult or trivial it is for the controller of a telekinetic manipulation to use the effect of the manipulation.


This is a very true statement, which is totally ignored by less thoughtful posters who jump to the conclusion that it is minimal or somehow nonexistent in a spell like levitation that requires some undetermined amount of effort to use. As I have said over and over, the rules are vague. This has earned me many attacks and flames for no reason even though I am correct.

QUOTE
The nearest example I can think of for comparison would be Magic Fingers, where successes on the spell become the equivalent of quickness and strength for the caster to use on targets at a distance, iirc.
Using Magic Fingers on a subject you can see is no more difficult than using your own hands (unless there are modifiers mentioned in the spell that I don't recall), so it seems reasonable to assume that using Levitate is no harder than walking or swimming (in terms of mental effort) - which makes it pretty trivial.


By your own example, one magic fingers spell charges a +2 TN modifier to all skill rolls and a quickness test just to pick up smaller items. Obviously you are thinking along the same lines as I am, but can't quite come over to the dark side, so to speak. At least you are reasonable to speak with.

You can't walk very fast or in a strange place while cramming for an important exam can you? yes it can be done, but it is a distraction as much as someone tapping you gently on the shoulder when you are trying to reply to my post. A gentle tap is trivial isn't it? It is a distraction though, and we are yet to see an actual quote on exactly how trivial it is. Until then there is nothing to refute my interpretation of canon over anyone elses. This is why there are so many sects in religion, won't you agree? I may be right, until the deities at fanpro speak in the errata there is little point in flaming me for having a differing interpretation is there?

QUOTE
Trying to manipulate 6 things at a time is pretty distracting, I grant you, but that has nothing to do with rules for the Levitate spell, or any other spell, or with sustaining spell.


Yes, thank you for at least admitting it would be difficult. I would say more difficult than juggling the same number of items, because each object would not be limited to 2 dimensional flight, there would be a yaw, pitch, angle, and speed. And according to canon, this foci can be taken out of LOS and used, according to my more rabid detractors with no concentration at all based on the one part of sustaining foci description they are chained to with their straw man arguments. But, ummmm, how can levitating 6 things at once not be related to a leviation spell? I am not sure what you are saying here?

QUOTE
What penalty would you assign to a Rigger issuing orders for a series of complex manoeuvres to 6 drones from captain's chair mode?


You have me at a supreme advantage. I think rigging is one of the most boring aspects of SR there is. I would never consider even playing a rigger and have not looked at the rules, so I will decline to comment.

QUOTE
I never knew Critias was a girl.


From the way she acts I just made an assumption. I'm still not convinced either way at this point.

QUOTE
If you want to discuss house rules or what "should be canon but isn't" then start a new thread for it or at least make it clear that is what you are doing. Otherwise, the rest on this forum will expect you to be talking about the actual rules for Shadowrun and will argue according to those. The general standard here is that unless otherwise specified, any discussion of rules is about the current books, their contents, and ways to interpret them.


Well put, let's talk canon.

My interpretation of canon is that the sustaining of a spell is due to the use of the spell, not the channeling of mana. This is of key importance to part of my argument where a spell sustained/powered/"locked" by a sustaining focus does not get rid of the TN penalty if the spell is not a passive one. If the caster must attend to the spell after it is locked in a foci he gets the +2 TN. Nothing in canon I have read disproves this. Also on page 38 of the main book it says moving, weather, and other things add to TNs, every last situation is not covered there. It just makes good sense that if you have to look where your subject is going to levitate to it is a distraction.

My interpretation of sustaining foci is that a spell sustained and "locked" by a sustaining focus must meet the requirements of being able to be freed from "concentration or attention". A literal word for word reading of the foci says any spell with a target that can be sustained can be sustained by the focus. I would like a clarification to say only passive spells, so this is house rule for now.

QUOTE
Now, thats your opinion, which is fine, but you are no longer discussing the rules as written and are instead discussing a house rule. Make it clear you are not trying to contradict canon, but feel it is broken and that you are house ruling (read: changing canon) to fix it. This will stop 99% of the arguements against you.


Another well stated post. Perhaps it is my fault for not being clear. But this is exactly what I thought everyone knew from the start. I stated clearly that I was here to help, and asked multiple times for others to help me. My apologies if I was not clear. Though some of what I am saying is not opinion, some of it is interpretation. As we all know interpretation of the same words have caused a multitude of religious diversity. it doesn't make what I am saying wrong.

QUOTE
Now, furthermore, you have failed to grasp the concept of a straw man fallacy. You then proceed to throw it around, wanting to appear more intelligent than you are, while using it incorrectly. Strawman is a name for it. Just like Pepsi is the name of a type of soda. It doesn't mean your arguement has the consistancy of straw, nor does it mean its a man, or any combonation of the two. It says you've focused on a point that is not relevant to the discussion, in order to make your belief appear stronger, when the point focused on is not relevant.


In my defense, I did not graduate high school nor do I consider myself exceptionally intelligent. I feel I am wise, but not book smart. I had no clue this was an actual term used in conversation. That said, I am still not certain if it was used to belittle my efforts or not and when I made it clear I didn't appreciate it being used many posters started flaming the hell out of me, many did use it in a derogatory manner, of that I am certain. My example of using 6 levitates was not set up to make someone elses argument look like a straw filled an either. I just used common sense, thought like a munchkin for a moment and came up with the idea of a team of friends flying around like attack helicopters on a raid. It is perfectly legit to show the possible abuse of a system as is to highlight the changes that need to be made.

QUOTE
You also fail to understand what sustaining a spell is. You get +2 for sustaining a spell. Period. That is what the penalty is for, and that is why it exists. As long as the spell is a sustained spell, and you are sustaining the spell, you get +2 to what you do. Now, if the sustaining focus is being used, it removed the +2 modifier for sustaing a spell. Period. It has its own rules to be used (bonded, touching subject, etc) but what its purpose is is to sustain the spell in place of the magician. This removes the +2 tn.


This is where I disagree with you. There are two parts to sustaining, the powering of the spell, tapping/channeling the mana, and the use of the effects which require concentration. Your own failure is to divide spells into passive and active. Nothing in canon says the +2 TN is not from using the effects of the spell in the sustaining process. The commonly held belief is that the sustaining process is mostly due to the requirements to channel the mana. It could be that, but it could also, by canon, be as I have said. So when locking the spell with a sustaining foci you can either argue that the spell once "locked" is set to do the last command given ie levitate up at 1 meter per turn, and then it requires no more "concentration or attention" as canon states, or since you must use concentration and attention it still gives the +2 TN when sustained by a foci, but no longer requires the mage to be in contact himself with mana.

QUOTE
I asked you, if I have my 6 man ballet, or whatever other example you're using, and I'm sustaining all 6 spells. +12 TN modifier. Why is it completely possible and ok for me to do that (via your arguement), and make the ballet? Because theres a TN modifier? Would you force a success check to make them ballet? What would the base TN be? +12 after than because of sustaining the spells.


You are the first person to ask this question! Thank you. No I would not allow you to automatically create the ballet successfully. I would require a quickness check with a hefty TN. I would allow your knowledge dance or ballet as a secondary skill. And you would get a +2 modifier to the final TN for each of the ballet members you were levitating required. The number of successes made would be the degree of success to the feat, with at least 1 required to even pull it off. Nearly impossible feats are TN 10. I suppose it is not an impossible feat to direct a ballet, but an aerial one, and one where you will be moving subjects around in mid air, I suppose at least an 8 or 9, then I would take other factors into play like weather, lighting, etc...

QUOTE
Example: You would set the base TN at 8. Ballets are fairly tricky, but not too hard. Now, the magician is sustaining 6 spells, so its +12. His TN is 20 to make them ballet. Near impossible right?


I did not read this first. We are obviously thinking alike. I said a 8 or 9.

QUOTE
Now, he has sustaining foci, all they do is sustain the spells for him, enabling him to not take a TN penalty for having them active. Now his TN is 8 again, and within the realm of possibility.


This is where I disagree. You are correct, all the foci do is sustain the spells, they do not make any decisions on where the subjects go and intuitively place them there, the foci has no part of the effects of a spell, it was supposedly "locked" once bonded. Any further changes in effects and manipulating of the effects still would require concentration, according to canon, this gives a TN penalty. You can look on pg 38 and determine it, or look on pg 178 for your answer. Nobody has shown me that the TN is not from manipulating the effects of a spell. No quote has been produced.

QUOTE
Admit you are not discussing canon, you think it is broken, and that you are trying to make a rule to fix it. Say "This is my house rule to fix what I believe is an error in canon. I am not interpretting canon as not allowing this, I just don't believe it should be allowed, and will make my own house rule to fix this error."


I have already done that and been viciously attacked for it. The house ruling is not allowing levitate to be used in a foci because it can't conform to the rules of a foci in the fact that it can't be used without attention or concentration as to the rules under sustaining foci. It is broken and needs to be fixed.

QUOTE
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.


I sort of get this concept, but I am not exactly clear how I used the straw man? Honestly. This is not for argument purposes, this is for future reference.

QUOTE
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.


BS, we have already discussed as irrelevant getting an 11 intelligence.

QUOTE
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.


No. Common sense tells me sheep congregate in flocks and fan boys come to each other's rescue when they are drowning. I had previously spoken with 2 other GMs aside from myself and both agreed with me when I had the chance to go over this crap in real life. Today I spoke with a third that agreed with me. That is three that agree to zero that disagree. Now, I have two other emails out to GMs so we will see how it goes electronically, but with players who know and trust me. Btw, they all assumed it was your interpretation until I pointed out the common mistake and how broken it is.

QUOTE

I don't have a quote from canon. Why would I?


I don't know? Because you can't produce one to support your claim over mine?

QUOTE

What is based on logic, and will now be argued in baby steps:


All the A and B stuff was way too confusing.

So let's base it on logic:

1) A spell needs mana and someone to concentrate on producing an effect for it to come to life. This is called sustaining a spell.

2) A sustaining focus provides the source of mana and "locks" a spell on auto pilot as long as there is no further concentration or attention needed to make the spell work.

3) A spell like levitate needs attention to make it work.

4) Needing attention is a distraction.

5) A distraction will cause a TN penalty to a test.

6) Sustaining a spell causes a +2 TN for the distraction of the attention required to produce an effect.

7) Using multiple spells that require concentration to maintain the effects of will be multiple distractions.

Your stubborn refusal to accept the fact that there is a distraction to using a spell like levitate shows your lack of logical thinking.

QUOTE
I paid money to get shadowrun books, so I should USE them. They created the universe. They are the 'all powerful God who created everything' or 'the laws of nature, physics, etc', whichever theory you prefer. They might have made something that's different from the real world. So? It's their creation.


And there would be no errata if they were perfect, huh? Sheeeeep.

QUOTE
Levitate: +2 TN. Your position is that the target number is for using the spell... why is sustaining it not a modifier? Sustaining it must be trivial then.. That's not consistent with the armour spell..


Which is why I suggested earlier that perhaps another +1 TN modifier to active effort spells would be in order or even a +2 like magic fingers, which would cause a +4 modifier to use a skill with, +2 for sustaining a spell, and +2 for the fine detail work of using the effects. We are in a broken situation. This small inconsistency does not refute my argument or weaken it in any way. Obviously the designers overlooked passive and active spells when designing sustaining foci. More important is your refusal to accept that there would be some sort of penalty to use a levitate spell in a foci and perform another action. Your argument has holes that a truck can drive thru with room to spare.

QUOTE
rgument isn't a straw man. Beyond that, you seem to have missed the entire point of the argument -- that the concentration on moving someone with your mind isn't enough to warrent a TN change. Not that it isn't there, it's just NOT WORTH IMPOSING, since it would be +.1 or some such trivial amount.


Can you show me in canon where you got .1 TN? I think +2 is reasonable and have shown why I feel this way.

QUOTE
"Baaaaaaaaaaa"


Return to your flock, ewe, you look lost without them.

QUOTE
The rules are there's no penalty, but you still control the spell. Anything else is house rules.


See page 38. There are penalties for everything. The question is how much. Canon under spells says +2. Everything else is just fluff and flames.

Rory Blackhand
QUOTE
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.


Can we meet at a convention? I go to quite a few.
Rory Blackhand
QUOTE
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.


I am not familiar with Matrix rules, sorry. Movement does add a penalty to firing your weapon. And a very steep one at that, so that does not support your theory.

QUOTE
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.


You started out asking a serious question and I answered it, then read this shit. What is your fucking problem any way? Grow up, kid.
Rory Blackhand
QUOTE
This thread is on the verge of being closed. Rein it in and end the personal attacks.


As the center of the abuse I will be happy to tone it down. I take it stoicly for the most part, but it really is cowardly. I have a great point that I have developed and nobody has assailed it. I hope we can limit discussion to just the debate points and drop the BS?
Rory Blackhand
Anyone left seriously debating want to answer some questions?

1) Since you can place a foci on another person and the person can travel away would you be able to use the spell levitate if he were out of LOS?

2) If you accept that there is some amount of attention required to levitate an object, can anyone find in canon how much of a distraction it would be?

3) If you believe you have to look where you are going when you are walking do you have to also look where you are levitating an object as well?

4) Does everyone agree that using a levitate in a foci would require enough concentration to preclude an exclusive action?

5) How do you justify the inconsistancy of this statement with the fact that an active spell like levitate does require some attention? (The spell locked in a foci does not need attention or concentration by the caster.)

6) What would happen to a subject you had under a mind control spell if you went to sleep?

7) What would happen to an object that was levitaing if you fell asleep while it was hovering still 50 meters off the ground?

cool.gif If you say it would hover to answer the above question, how do you see the spell "locked" in place in a foci?

More questions as I can think of them coming.
Dog
What's a strawman?
Herald of Verjigorm
QUOTE (Rory Blackhand)
1) Since you can place a foci on another person and the person can travel away would you be able to use the spell levitate if he were out of LOS?
Only by ritual, but then you can't cast it into the focus (both being exclusive magical acts).
QUOTE
2) If you accept that there is some amount of attention required to levitate an object, can anyone find in canon how much of a distraction it would be?
As long as the object does not need special care, I see no need for a penalty. Levitating a tray that has an imbalanced vase worth millions setting on it I would give a test, but levitating a soybeer from the open cooler to your hand would not deserve a test. I know of no rule in the book, but I suggest using an intelligence test everywhere you would force a quickness test if it were being done by hand.
QUOTE
3) If you believe you have to look where you are going when you are walking do you have to also look where you are levitating an object as well?
Only if you want to make sure it doesn't crash. Levitating a bag 1 meter directly behind you as you move would be reasonably safe even without watching it.
QUOTE
4) Does everyone agree that using a levitate in a foci would require enough concentration to preclude an exclusive action?
No, we do not all agree to that.
QUOTE
5) How do you justify the inconsistancy of this statement with the fact that an active spell like levitate does require some attention? (The spell locked in a foci does not need attention or concentration by the caster.)
It may require attention, it may not. It depends on what you are doing with the spell, not the spell and focus aspect.
QUOTE
6) What would happen to a subject you had under a mind control spell if you went to sleep?
Assuming you mean that the mind control is focus sustained. The effect will remain until it is broken, and it will break more easily without the mage in LoS and able to reinforce the control (see spell rules, treat as out of LoS for additional resistance tests if the mage is asleep or something like that).
QUOTE
7) What would happen to an object that was levitaing if you fell asleep while it was hovering still 50 meters off the ground?
If sustained by a focus, it hovers until something breaks the spell or mean GMs may see if the mage dreams about moving the object. If no focus, it falls.
QUOTE
8) If you say it would hover to answer the above question, how do you see the spell "locked" in place in a foci?
To be stationary in relation to a quickly spinning planet rotating around a star that is itself rotating amid the galaxy which is also drifting at high speeds takes a lot of speed depending on what is the reference frame. There is no "stationary" there is only "stationary with relation to" and the spell will retain whatever was the last relative movement until a different relevant movement is desired or the spell breaks.
QUOTE
More questions as I can think of them coming.
More answers if I feel like it.
QUOTE (Dog)
What's a strawman?
BitBasher (IIRC) has a link to a list of logical fallicies in his sig, it will have a better description. Paraphrased and possibly misstated, it is the process of ignoring an actual argument, countering something that has a vague similarity or two, and claiming that the original point is disproven when the actual points were never fully addressed.
Rory Blackhand
Dude, I wish I knew exactly what a straw man is and had experience how it is used in context, but I don't. According to websters it looks like an insult. That's the way I took it. I hope one of the guys that used it will explain why exactly my idea was a straw man.
Sharaloth
Dog, This gives an accurate explanation of the straw man fallacy, as well as many other common and annoying logical fallacies. Also, This would apply to at least two statements that I have read of Rory's. Other interesting fallacies of note in this thread include this and this.
Eyeless Blond
A Straw Man attack is essentially when someone attempts to refute an argument by misinterpreting the original argument, then attacking the misinterpretation. For example, suppose I state that mevement is typically not considered an action. It would be a straw man attack to attempt to refute that claim by stating that firing a gun while moving incurs a TN modifier. There are actually a number of things wrong with that argument, in particular the fact that movement does not affect any *other* test than ranged combat, including melee combat, but the reason it's a straw man is that my argument had nothing to do with TN modifiers in the first place, only with actual use of actions.

It's important to note that the fallacy is in misinterpreting the original argument, not necessarily in extrapolating from another's argument. This is why some people have difficulty recognizing how the aerial ballet is a straw man, because it is an attempt at reductio ad absurdum, which *is* a valid argumentative technique, but doesn't work simply because it makes a number of assumptions that aren't made by the original argument. The main one in this case is claiming that just because simple actions are simple, you are necessarily arguing that complex actions that are made up of many simple actions must also be simple. This is of course false, and never stated anywhere in the original argument, but is pivotal to the straw man attack used as a counterargument.

There are a number of other logical fallacies that you can find excellent examples of in this thread. The ones that worry me the most though are the increasing number of ad hominem attacks, (aka "flames"), as they are usually death to rational discussion, particularly in a forum, as evidenced above.
Sandoval Smith
When I originally called a 'strawmen,' it was in response to the arguement suddenly involving six levitated people. A man made of straw is easy to knock down. When you are accussed of making a strawman arguement, it means you've presented an example that is easily knocked down to better prove your own point.

A:"Driving is safe."

B: "No, driving is the most dangerous thing ever. No one should do it. Anyone who does is a moron trying to kill themself. How can you _not_ have an accident, even going down a straight road with a cell phone in one hand, a hot cup of coffee in the other, putting on your makeup while eating breakfast, the radio going full volume while you're looking over your shoulder to talk to two friends in the back seat?"
Kagetenshi
This is not to be confused with reducto ad absurdium, a valid debating technique whereby an idea is taken to a logical extreme and demonstrated to be absurd through this. Example:

A: "Driving is safe."

B: "So even when you're going down a winding road in a wet snowstorm with a cell phone in one hand and breakfast in the other, a styrofoam cup of boiling coffee between your thighs, the radio going full volume while you're looking over your shoulder to talk to the kids in the back seat, it's safe?"

Note the difference between showing an absurd situation and assuming that it is the only possible situation.

~J
Kanada Ten
I thought a strawman was a tangent attack:

"Driving is safe."

"Nothing is safe. You've got people with guns, drunk drivers, comets, and all sorts of dangerous stuff going on. People are dying left and right. How can anyone ever be safe?"
Sandoval Smith
That's not a bad example, but that follows my original definition: you set up an example that makes the base arguement very easy to knock down.
JaronK
A strawman arguement is trying to argue against a general point by chosing a specific point, then shooting down the specific point by pointing out something wrong with it that doesn't actually apply to the general arguement.

Reductio ad absurdum is trying to argue against a general point by chosing a specific point, then shooting down the specific point by pointing out something wrong with it that does apply to the general arguement.

So, in this case, argueing that a sustaining focus stops you from controling the spell by saying it would lead to doing a huge ariel ballet without TN penalties is a strawman, because a GM's target number for doing an ariel ballet really doesn't have anything to do with whether using a sustaining focus allows control of the spell.

Reductio ad absurdum might be used if someone made a house rule that allowed the armour spell to count as hardened armour, stacking with all other armours... you might say "if you did that, you could have gel packed security armour and a force 6 armour spell, and be immune to virtually every non-vehicular weapon." This just takes an extream aspect of the rule, and shows how it would be unbalanced.

JaronK
Critias
Fairly oversimplified straw man definition.
Sandoval Smith
Doing the math, I actually have no problem with a mage having absolutely no penalties (under normal circumstances. If they start having to dodge trolls, or do ballet, that's different) for manuvering multiple people with Levitate spells locked in a sustaining focus.

One big reason is the speed of a levitate spell. Each turn a Levitated object can move Meters x Successes (limited by force). Risking magic loss for Focus Addiction occurs when you have more active foci than 2x your magic rating, and you check for magic loss every round. So, every round you're using six F6 Foci imbued with F6 Levitate, you have to roll against TN 18 to avoid losing a point of magic.

So, living dangerously, our example mage with his Magic 6 could use six F2 Foci imbued with F2 Levitate, and not risk magic loss. However, he won't be able to move anyone faster than 2 meters a turn. Defenitly no ballet happening there.

Sustaining Foci are also set for one specific spell when they're bonded. If you want to change the spell it sustains, you have to spend more karma. They're also not cheap to begin with: Forcex15,000 nuyen.

This seems like pretty definte proof that it's really hard to go munchin with Levitate and foci.
Kagetenshi
Eh? I'm getting 12 meters/turn.

~J
Sandoval Smith
Awwww fudge! Well, that's a perfectly good arguement shot to shit. It's Magic attribute x Successes (limited by force) = Meters per turn. How long have I been figuring that wrong? (don't tell me, I don't want to know). So yeah, in example 2, they'd be going 12 meters a turn, not 2. At that speed you could probably get a good sized square dance going. I'm pretty sure the rest of my arguement holds though.
JaronK
Yes, you could squaredance, but I think the quickstep might be too fast. Whee.

JaronK
Rory Blackhand
QUOTE
Doing the math, I actually have no problem with a mage having absolutely no penalties (under normal circumstances. If they start having to dodge trolls, or do ballet, that's different) for manuvering multiple people with Levitate spells locked in a sustaining focus.


Well, I hadn't considered the speed being important to the argument, so doing Swan Lake is questionable at walking pace, navigating thru a tangle of high power lines is not though. This begs a further question though. Does the foci have the power to generate a "hover" effect on it's own, or would the spell effect disappear when the caster stopped concentrating on manipulating the effects of a levitate? And do you need line of sight to guide where the object is going or not? If you are flying a kite and the wind suddenly stops blowing even a kite, though aerodynamically deigned to catch the slightest current and even use falling wind resistance to float on, will plummet to earth. I suggest every time you blink and remove your eye from the task, or your mind wanders to the piece of ass you got last night your subject is getting jolted with free fall, because the spell does not work on auto pilot in any way shape or form. You can't look at a 10 meter stretch envision your object moving there and look away for most of the round. You have to constantly "push" the object along with concentration.

And further, the whole point was to gain a TN penalty to other actions, like dodging trolls and studying for calculus exams. You just agreed with me. Where I feel you are wrong, is that you can't divide your attention good enough to "concentrate" on 6 different objects moving at different directions and elevations, even possibly out of your line of sight. You may think you can do it because your straw man argument has them moving slow, but in reality it would require an intelligence check with a +2 TN for each division of your minds computational powers.

QUOTE
One big reason is the speed of a levitate spell. Each turn a Levitated object can move Meters x Successes (limited by force). Risking magic loss for Focus Addiction occurs when you have more active foci than 2x your magic rating, and you check for magic loss every round. So, every round you're using six F6 Foci imbued with F6 Levitate, you have to roll against TN 18 to avoid losing a point of magic.


Would this qualify as being a straw man argument? You are assuming Force 6 or even Force 2 and saying the speed is a factor in the amount of "concentration" required to exert constant levitation to an object. This sets up an argument that is easier to win, but it has noting to do with whether there is a TN penalty to establish constant "concentration" to levitate an item, which means your attention would be diverted for the entire length of a turn spent levitating and is therefore not the argument. Just curious.

QUOTE
This seems like pretty definte proof that it's really hard to go munchin with Levitate and foci.


This seems like pretty definite proof of a straw man argument, according to the definition you players have given. The munchkin potential is still there. We have not even barley touched on mind control spells yet, which I plan to get to later.

QUOTE
Awwww fudge! Well, that's a perfectly good arguement shot to shit. It's Magic attribute x Successes (limited by force) = Meters per turn. How long have I been figuring that wrong? (don't tell me, I don't want to know). So yeah, in example 2, they'd be going 12 meters a turn, not 2. At that speed you could probably get a good sized square dance going. I'm pretty sure the rest of my arguement holds though.


Not only have you been shown to be wrong in your straw man example you gave, but your math is clouded as well. And is it that movement rate per action or is it that rate per turn? The potential difference is quite large, at least doubling if not tripling your rate of speed. A Force 2 spell is roughly able to propel an object at 8 miles an hour. Hardly square dance pace, but not sprinting either. Tango anyone? That assumes you only get 1 action a turn, and that assumes you are only a starting character with a 6 magic rating. If you had a power focus or grades of initiation it goes up.

But this is a straw man argument designed with the supposed intent of making it easier to shoot down some aspect of my argument with an absurd example that has nothing to do with my argument. It has comically backfired due to inadequate thoughtfulness at doing even that though. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Rory Blackhand
Oh calcs = Magic attribute of 6 Force 1 levitate spell in Force 1 foci. 6 x 1 = 6 meters per action.

Just 1 action = 6 meters in 3 seconds. 6 x 20 = 120 meters per minute. 120 x 60 = 720 meters per hour, which is roughly 4 miles per hour, which is a bit faster than a walk.

Two actions a round would put it above jogging rate at 8 miles an hour, this with a Force 1 foci and Force 1 spell only. Double this for a Force 2 in the above strtaw man example.
Demosthenes
QUOTE
This begs a further question though. Does the foci have the power to generate a "hover" effect on it's own, or would the spell effect disappear when the caster stopped concentrating on manipulating the effects of a levitate?


Why would the focus need the "power" to "generate" a hover effect "on its own"? It's sustaining a levitate spell which has already been cast into it!
The power needed to generate the hover effect has been provided by the magician (who suffered drain to cast the spell and spent karma to bond the effect to the focus).

As to "concentrating on manipulating the effects of a levitate": there is no evidence anywhere in canon that the caster needs to concentrate to manipulate the effects of a levitate. The caster would, obviously, need to use free, simple, or complex actions to perform tasks using the spell, but which action is for a GM to decide, neh?
There is evidence that performing telekinetic manipulations is more difficult than performing the same manipulations with your own hands. It's not the same thing, however, as saying that using telekinetic manipulations requires concentration.

After all, Magic Fingers hardly gives you a very precise ranged sense of touch, does it? Would that account for the unnamed +2 penalty? Is there any need to assess an additional penalty for any other use of Magic Fingers, given that the rules have already specified just what penalties should be assessed?

Is your actual question: "Would the focus continue to generate a levitation effect independent of the caster's concentration?" ?

There are two perfectly valid interpretations of the canon rules that answer your question. The only problem is that one interpretation says yes, the other says no.

My take on it: Would you drop something just because you stopped thinking about it? (This seems an appropriate analogy)

Pick the one you like, be happy, and stop shouting at people who disagree with you about it.
Fortune
The Movement of the spell (and all movement) is calculated per turn, not per action. Movement is divided evenly over the entire turn, based on the maximum amount of passes in that turn, hence more actions does not in any way equate to more speed per turn.
Demosthenes
And that still screws with my head...
The whole "moving at 18 metres per turn and then I drop prone as my free action at the end of the first initiative pass" thing...
Sandoval Smith
QUOTE (Rory Blackhand @ Mar 18 2005, 06:54 AM)
Oh calcs  = Magic attribute of 6 Force 1 levitate spell in Force 1 foci. 6 x 1 = 6 meters per action.

Just 1 action = 6 meters in 3 seconds. 6 x 20 = 120 meters per minute. 120 x 60 = 720 meters per hour, which is roughly 4 miles per hour, which is a bit faster than a walk.

Two actions a round would put it above jogging rate at 8 miles an hour, this with a Force 1 foci and Force 1 spell only. Double this for a Force 2 in the above strtaw man example.

That's movement over the entire turn (it says 'turn' specifically in the description, not 'action'). So at Force 3, you'll be flying at the speed of a full out run.

QUOTE
And that still screws with my head...
The whole "moving at 18 metres per turn and then I drop prone as my free action at the end of the first initiative pass" thing...


If it helps any, just because you drop prone, doesn't mean you do it elegantly. Watch out for rug burn.
Demosthenes
I know...
The fun part happens if you spend an action to get back up and keep moving...

Fortunately, my players are lazy and never actually bother to keep track of just exactly where their characters are and what they're doing...they just trust me when I tell them what's going on and pull numbers out of my posterior.

Either they're far too trusting and lazy, or I'm doing something right.

I suspect the former...
Tarantula
Rory you are missing a fine point. You are attempting to define (along with everyone else) just what 'sustaining' as spell entails. It is never said what it entails. You are simply 'sustaining' it.

The +2 sustaining penalty comes from sustaining a spell, not from channelling mana into it, concentrating on it, having physical strain due to mana coursing through you into it, having a headache, or even thinking about your last hot piece of ass. Its from sustaining the spell.

Using a sustaining focus to sustain a spell, allows the focus to take over sustaining the spell for you, removing that penalty.

"You can't look at a 10 meter stretch envision your object moving there and look away for most of the round. You have to constantly "push" the object along with concentration."
Thats you. Show me the quote that says you must concentrate on the motion of the object for the entire duration of its journey. Why can't you simply think "Move 10 meters that way." Then proceed to ponder ass, calculus, and Bubba the Love Troll while said object moves that direction at whatever rate of speed it can. Canon doesn't say.

The other problem with your arguements, is you're going off what isn't said. You are using common sense, but common sense is not actually all that common, and is dismissed in a structured debate, as well as usually on a forum. This drops your position back to what isn't said, just as easily, I can say, 'Canon doesn't give you any TN penalty for eating food while trying to do anything, there should be one. Canon doesn't disallow it, and I want to make them roll their body to avoid choking on that soydog too. Canon doesn't say you don't, so it must be true.'

Thats the problem with your position, and I don't think most people conciously can spot it, but the realize it as a weakness in your arguement, but fail to see it in order to point it out.

Canon implicitly denies anything that isn't specified. Sustaining a spell is done by sustaining it, not concentrating or anything else. Running around is done without any actions, however performing actions may have penalties associated with them for running while you do them.

Canon also doesn't divide sustained spells into simple and complex ones. They're all simply 'sustained'. Stating that levitation takes any more effort than armor, is basing off 'common sense' which while I agree with, it is not canon which is the discussion at hand.

Cannonly, you can levitate an object through a sustained focus without any penalty. It doesn't say how you levitate the object, so you can do it in a way that requires effectely no concentration on your part.

Even out of line-of-sight you can, as its the focus sustaining it. The spell has been cast and is sustained, allowing the caster to move the target. You're almost garunteeably hit something with them, but you could make them float around.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make, is that simply because canon omits something, defaultly denies it as false. Everybody is wrong about what it takes to sustain a spell, because to sustain a spell, you must sustain it, incurring a +2 penalty. Nothing else is said, make up whatever flavor text you want to explain it, none of it can be used for common sense arguements either.
Dawnshadow
QUOTE

QUOTE
All the actual logical rational arguments that were worth trying to use on you, other people have beat me to. You ignore them, refute them with all the rhetoric and eloquence of "NUH UH," flame whoever it is that said it, or do all of the above.


I have seen very few rational arguments being used against me. Most of it has been by flaming egoists.


That's like saying that just because someone is arrogant and antisociable, their argument that 'drugs are bad because they (insert long speech about the side affects of street drugs)' is wrong or irrational. Quite simply, it's not the case.. the person delivering the argument is irrelevent to the argument.

QUOTE

QUOTE
But the +2 tn for sustaining a spell is a penalty you suffer because you are sustaining a spell. Not because you are "using the spell effects".


Sort of. You have the access to the mana which powers the spell, which is under the description of how magic works, and you have the use of the spell effects. Unless you can quote somewhere that says the TN is derived from powering the spell then I can just as easily say it is from using the effects, which is all part of sustaining a spell and equally canon. You say the +2 is from weaving the magic, I say it is from using the effects, and yes the effects are being used by the target of the spell, it doesn't matter if it is the caster or a subject, the caster must concentrate on making the spell effects happen, which causes a TN modifier regardless of who it is on.


It's theoretically possible that your interpretation could be supported by canon.
Now... how do you get a +2 TN from giving someone else 'increased quickness' as per the spell? The caster isn't even the subject of the spell, or controlling the affects of the spell, all he can do is drop the spell.

QUOTE

QUOTE
SR Canon - that is to say, the Rules of the game, which you think are incomplete - do not say how difficult or trivial it is for the controller of a telekinetic manipulation to use the effect of the manipulation.


This is a very true statement, which is totally ignored by less thoughtful posters who jump to the conclusion that it is minimal or somehow nonexistent in a spell like levitation that requires some undetermined amount of effort to use.


Not ignored. Simply taken as that -- it's not said. Logically, if they thought it was important, they'd have said it. They didn't, so until they decide something and post an errata, it stays as 'unimportant' to my mind.

QUOTE

QUOTE
You also fail to understand what sustaining a spell is. You get +2 for sustaining a spell. Period. That is what the penalty is for, and that is why it exists. As long as the spell is a sustained spell, and you are sustaining the spell, you get +2 to what you do. Now, if the sustaining focus is being used, it removed the +2 modifier for sustaing a spell. Period. It has its own rules to be used (bonded, touching subject, etc) but what its purpose is is to sustain the spell in place of the magician. This removes the +2 tn.


This is where I disagree with you. There are two parts to sustaining, the powering of the spell, tapping/channeling the mana, and the use of the effects which require concentration. Your own failure is to divide spells into passive and active. Nothing in canon says the +2 TN is not from using the effects of the spell in the sustaining process. The commonly held belief is that the sustaining process is mostly due to the requirements to channel the mana. It could be that, but it could also, by canon, be as I have said. So when locking the spell with a sustaining foci you can either argue that the spell once "locked" is set to do the last command given ie levitate up at 1 meter per turn, and then it requires no more "concentration or attention" as canon states, or since you must use concentration and attention it still gives the +2 TN when sustained by a foci, but no longer requires the mage to be in contact himself with mana.


Dictionary.com:
sustaining:
1. To keep in existence; maintain.
2. To supply with necessities or nourishment; provide for.
3. To support from below; keep from falling or sinking; prop.
4. To support the spirits, vitality, or resolution of; encourage.
5. To bear up under; withstand: can't sustain the blistering heat.
6. To experience or suffer: sustained a fatal injury.
7. To affirm the validity of: The judge has sustained the prosecutor's objection.
8. To prove or corroborate; confirm.
9. To keep up (a joke or assumed role, for example) competently.

How does any definition of sustaining imply utilizing aspects of it? If you want to house rule that sustaining means 'sustaining and using', feel free. That's changing the definition of sustaining.

Personally, definitions 1 and 2 make sense, the rest don't really. Neither even remotely implies using anything granted by the spell.

QUOTE
QUOTE

I don't have a quote from canon. Why would I?


I don't know? Because you can't produce one to support your claim over mine?


Forgot to explain the term used to describe the reasoning I gave (I thought the example would do): Counter-Factual. It's a form of argument thatis not supported, because it did not happen. It's typically only used in the past. It's a 'what if' style argument. 'What would happen' 'What would have happened' and so on.

QUOTE
QUOTE

What is based on logic, and will now be argued in baby steps:


All the A and B stuff was way too confusing.

So let's base it on logic:

1) A spell needs mana and someone to concentrate on producing an effect for it to come to life. This is called sustaining a spell.
2) A sustaining focus provides the source of mana and "locks" a spell on auto pilot as long as there is no further concentration or attention needed to make the spell work.
3) A spell like levitate needs attention to make it work.
4) Needing attention is a distraction.
5) A distraction will cause a TN penalty to a test.
6) Sustaining a spell causes a +2 TN for the distraction of the attention required to produce an effect.
7) Using multiple spells that require concentration to maintain the effects of will be multiple distractions.

Your stubborn refusal to accept the fact that there is a distraction to using a spell like levitate shows your lack of logical thinking.


If you can't understand set theory (I think it was grade 10 that I learned it), then that's a whole different problem. The logic, on the other hand, is university level.

Now, analysing it at that level, your list of premises (statements which are part of the argument) is incomplete. You don't draw any conclusions from it. Also, it appears to be a chain style argument -- one premise roughly supports the next, and the argument fails when one premise is proven false.
Now.. point by point..
1) True
2) True -- but irrelevent. The spell produces the affect of 'this object moves where the caster wants it to'. It requires no additional concentration to produce THAT EFFECT at any given point.
3) True
4) True
5) False. Getting waved at is a distraction. Having someone shouting obscenities at you is a distraction. Neither of those applies TN penalties.
6) True. Levitate, affect produced 'caster can move the object with his mind'
7) True. Multiple spells are multiple affects. Multiple levitates, multiple spells to be sustained with affect 'caster can move the object with his mind'.

The problems with the argument are 5 -- it's a false statement, so 6 and 7 (and the implied conclusion) are invalid (they don't matter). A true statement is 'A distraction MAY cause a TN penalty to the test'.

Beyond that, all of your statements aren't relevent. They are conceptually related -- they all pertain to sustaining spells or the levitate spell, but they aren't logically related. I can't teach you logic -- I don't have that kind of time, and from your statement about not understanding mine, you wouldn't be able to understand the tools used -- one of which is using symbols to get rid of fluff in statements.

QUOTE
QUOTE
I paid money to get shadowrun books, so I should USE them. They created the universe. They are the 'all powerful God who created everything' or 'the laws of nature, physics, etc', whichever theory you prefer. They might have made something that's different from the real world. So? It's their creation.


And there would be no errata if they were perfect, huh? Sheeeeep.


Changing their mind is irrelevent -- they created the world, what they say goes. If they decide after a while they don't like something, or that something was vague, that's their business. They aren't obligated to clarify things because someone misinterprets the word 'sustains'.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Levitate: +2 TN. Your position is that the target number is for using the spell... why is sustaining it not a modifier? Sustaining it must be trivial then.. That's not consistent with the armour spell..


Which is why I suggested earlier that perhaps another +1 TN modifier to active effort spells would be in order or even a +2 like magic fingers, which would cause a +4 modifier to use a skill with, +2 for sustaining a spell, and +2 for the fine detail work of using the effects. We are in a broken situation. This small inconsistency does not refute my argument or weaken it in any way. Obviously the designers overlooked passive and active spells when designing sustaining foci. More important is your refusal to accept that there would be some sort of penalty to use a levitate spell in a foci and perform another action. Your argument has holes that a truck can drive thru with room to spare.


True enough, you could rule that way. But that's a whole different argument, and not one I'd care to argue, because I don't see any ... major.. problem with it. Now, if you decided to lump all that into 'sustaining' the spell, and make it invalidate foci... THAT I would argue. Sustaining foci sustain it. If you think an additional +1 or +2 for using the affects while doing something else is called for, then house rule it. The argument position you've been taking is different then that, and has been attacked time and time again. In part, at least in my case, because the way you seem to define it, whenever you're sustaining the spell, you have the 'using it' penalty too.. which doesn't make sense, because you can cast the spell on something and not levitate it away -- and you'd still have +2 for sustaining.. but you shouldn't have ANY for 'using'.

Likewise, the arguments I've made have been sound. You don't agree with part of the basis for them -- that doesn't mean there are 'truck sized holes', it just means you disagree with something that I use in the argument.

In case you haven't noticed the specifics of my arguments -- I don't touch on using skills for the spell. I personally am assuming that a GM will make me do a skill check to do something complicated. What I don't agree with is trying to say canon supports a +2 TN -- it doesn't. It allows it, since it allows GMs to add any TNs they feel are appropriate, but it doesn't SUPPORT it.

Likewise, just because they don't say something doesn't mean they overlook it. They might not have cared -- they seem to have something for magic fingers, so it seems more likely, and more reasonable, to assume that they don't think it matters with levitate.

When I suggested a +.1 TN, it's based on my personal believes which indicate that it is fairly trivial. It's quite possible that Shadowrun requires a heavier degree of concentration then I think is needed -- but there's nothing to support that, so I don't think it's worth it. I consider it much like typing. I'm thinking and typing at the same time, at about 80 wpm right now, since I don't feel like rushing. I can type at 120 wpm when I want to, and have multiple things going on to distract me -- and I don't consider willing something to move to be any worse then those.

Just to make it more clear, canon doesn't have an additional modifier, so canon either doesn't think there should be one, or thinks it's too trivial to include. Doesn't mean you can't disagree and impose one, just means that canon doesn't have it. I side with canon, you've seen my reasoning, you disagree with the difficulty I assign. I wouldn't game with you, but that's just personal taste.

edit: Bleh.. I don't have time to deal with the quote tags not being read as quote tags. Maybe I'll fix it later...
Tarantula
CODE
[QUOTE]QUOTE]
What is based on logic, and will now be argued in baby steps:[/QUOTE]


Theres your problem.
Dawnshadow
Thanks Tarantula
Rory Blackhand
QUOTE
Why would the focus need the "power" to "generate" a hover effect "on its own"? It's sustaining a levitate spell which has already been cast into it!


You tell me. According to most of my opposition there is little, if any, concentration needed to move an object. This hints that the foci is somehow able to fill in the blanks where your lack of concentration is needed to manipulate the spell effect. Under the spell levitate it says you can move objects in the casters line of sight. If line of sight is a requirement, then using vision is an unchangable aspect of the spell. Using vision requires you to use vision to move objects. If you stop using vision the objects stop moving. This is why I asked the leading question about the foci having some sort of extra powers, to explain how the levitate spell must work according to my opposition's broken version. So far I have not read anything that explains it enough to satisfy me.

QUOTE
As to "concentrating on manipulating the effects of a levitate": there is no evidence anywhere in canon that the caster needs to concentrate to manipulate the effects of a levitate.


As I mentioned above. Why does it state in canon that the object must be in line of sight to be moved? If there is no concentration involved in moving an object there should be no need to use your eyes. Common sense tells you that if you are moving an object thru a maze or over an obstacle you need to see and guide the object to it's destination. This requires concentration, and since spells in sustaining foci do not require concentration a levitate spell is incompatible with foci or the penalties for sustaining the spell are not lost by bonding and locking it to a foci.

QUOTE
The caster would, obviously, need to use free, simple, or complex actions to perform tasks using the spell, but which action is for a GM to decide, neh?


You are contradicting yourself. It is loud and clear, blatantly "obvious" to me the caster needs to use an action to use a spell like levitate in a foci. An intelligence check at least. Above you ignore LOS restriction and say there is no canon evidence that says you must concentrate on the spell, and now you say it is an action of some sort. Which is it?

QUOTE
There is evidence that performing telekinetic manipulations is more difficult than performing the same manipulations with your own hands. It's not the same thing, however, as saying that using telekinetic manipulations requires concentration.


Huh? This has nothing to do with the argument. Telekinetic manipulations are more difficult than physical manipulations, but that statement does not mean telekinetic manipulations require concentration. What's your point? I disagree with you though. If the subject of the spell is required to be in LOS it requires concentration to manipulate it. Zero effort equals zero output.

QUOTE
After all, Magic Fingers hardly gives you a very precise ranged sense of touch, does it? Would that account for the unnamed +2 penalty? Is there any need to assess an additional penalty for any other use of Magic Fingers, given that the rules have already specified just what penalties should be assessed?


The additional +2 TN in magic fingers has nothing to do with the penalty for concentrating on the spell, that is for problems in fine control.

QUOTE

My take on it: Would you drop something just because you stopped thinking about it? (This seems an appropriate analogy)


This is not an appropriate analogy. Would a helicopter fly if you stopped flying it? Without the human input the spell effects are dead in the water, no matter how much fuel the spell/chopper has. A vacum claener can be powered and turned on, but without someone to push it around it does nothing but stand there sucking up empty air. Get it?

QUOTE
Pick the one you like, be happy, and stop shouting at people who disagree with you about it.


I am perfectly at peace with the choice I have made. And I don't see how it is possible to yell at people in print? I certainly don't flame posters who do not flame me if that is what you are insinuating? Whether they agree or disagree with me does not change how I respond to anyone. I am the same to all.

QUOTE
That's movement over the entire turn (it says 'turn' specifically in the description, not 'action'). So at Force 3, you'll be flying at the speed of a full out run.


That's fine. It has nothing to do with the argument other than you did exactly what you accused me of by mentioning the speed involved. It is a straw man argument.

QUOTE
The +2 sustaining penalty comes from sustaining a spell, not from channelling mana into it, concentrating on it, having physical strain due to mana coursing through you into it, having a headache, or even thinking about your last hot piece of ass. Its from sustaining the spell.


I don't see that in canon. I don't see any difference in the concentration involved in using the spell as the +2 TN modifier.

QUOTE
Using a sustaining focus to sustain a spell, allows the focus to take over sustaining the spell for you, removing that penalty.


But it also says it takes away the concentration and attention, which is impossible to do with levitate, so a levitate would not work in a foci. Only passive spells would.

QUOTE
Thats you. Show me the quote that says you must concentrate on the motion of the object for the entire duration of its journey. Why can't you simply think "Move 10 meters that way." Then proceed to ponder ass, calculus, and Bubba the Love Troll while said object moves that direction at whatever rate of speed it can. Canon doesn't say.


According to the spell description, the object must be in LOS to be moved. If you close your eyes you no longer have line of sight and the subject will stop moving by canon. Show me where you can send something on auto pilot. And explain what would happen if it was intercepted, if all you have to do is visualize where it goes and close your eyes. No, you are forgetting the object must be in LOS. Every time you blink the object will plummet to the ground. By canon. This tells us that it requires constant concentration. Requiring concentration is directly at odds with sustaining foci, so either levitate is not allowed to be used with a foci, or it still has the +2 TN modifier for sustaining concentration on the spell.

QUOTE
I can say, 'Canon doesn't give you any TN penalty for eating food while trying to do anything, there should be one.


You could say that, but you would be wrong according to canon on page 38 of the core rule book under TNs. There is nothing wrong with my argument. The rule is the problem because of it's contradictions and vagary.

QUOTE
Thats the problem with your position, and I don't think most people conciously can spot it, but the realize it as a weakness in your arguement, but fail to see it in order to point it out.


If I had a weakness in my argument someone would have exposed it by now, but I have been able to refute everything said so far. I hardly call using common sense a weakness.

QUOTE
Running around is done without any actions, however performing actions may have penalties associated with them for running while you do them.


Just like levitating has penalties associated with it for moving about while you perform other actions.

QUOTE
Canon also doesn't divide sustained spells into simple and complex ones. They're all simply 'sustained'. Stating that levitation takes any more effort than armor, is basing off 'common sense' which while I agree with, it is not canon which is the discussion at hand.


You are either trying to use a broken rule to say I am wrong, or you are supporting the same? I can't quite figure which it is. Either way, I have never said there were simple or complex spells, I have said there are passive and active spells, without the support of a foci they both require constant concentration to produce the effects. Only passive spells can be placed into foci and conform to the rules due to the requirement of continued concentration to produce spell effects on non passive spells. I quite honestly don't know any easier way to say that.

QUOTE

Cannonly, you can levitate an object through a sustained focus without any penalty. It doesn't say how you levitate the object, so you can do it in a way that requires effectely no concentration on your part.


First I would not make that assumption at all. That is conjecture, unsupported by canon. That interpretation quite literally ignores LOS restriction stated in the text of the spell description.

QUOTE
Even out of line-of-sight you can, as its the focus sustaining it. The spell has been cast and is sustained, allowing the caster to move the target. You're almost garunteeably hit something with them, but you could make them float around.


You are changing the spell. please reread it. It is not a simple LOS spell it says line of sight is needed to move objects in the description of the spell. Close your eyes and LOS is broken. The ride could get quite bumpy if the caster is prone to hay fever. Don't make the mistake of giving more ability to the foci than it has. There is no auto pilot function or ability granted by the foci. I have no idea how the spell could be "locked" in place in the first place since the spell needs constant input to change it's effects, which require no concentration, and no LOS...? Also, for support and reference, I went back to second addition to read the levitate description and found this quote; "A magician can move a levitated object anywhere as long as the spell is maintained and the target stays in view". True this is third edition, but it is helpful to point out the obvious. Common sense tells you that it is impossible to move an object with your mind if you don't even have to look at where the object is going. That is all I have been trying to say all along. If you have to watch a flying object to keep it flying you can't even walk safely let alone fight a troll.

QUOTE
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make, is that simply because canon omits something, defaultly denies it as false. Everybody is wrong about what it takes to sustain a spell, because to sustain a spell, you must sustain it, incurring a +2 penalty. Nothing else is said, make up whatever flavor text you want to explain it, none of it can be used for common sense arguements either.


Only if you ignore a whole bunch of canon and common sense.

QUOTE
That's like saying that just because someone is arrogant and antisociable, their argument that 'drugs are bad because they (insert long speech about the side affects of street drugs)' is wrong or irrational. Quite simply, it's not the case.. the person delivering the argument is irrelevent to the argument.


No it is like saying exactly what I said. Many posters are here attacking the messenger without adding anything to the debate at all. Just because I disagree with a person's argument is no reason to oppose everything I say or feel threatened. There is no shame in losing a debate with me by those who know me. I sense much of the flaming is generated by out of control egos rather than rational thought, that is a common youthful mistake.

QUOTE
Now... how do you get a +2 TN from giving someone else 'increased quickness' as per the spell? The caster isn't even the subject of the spell, or controlling the affects of the spell, all he can do is drop the spell.


The caster is controlling the effects of the spell. If those effects could be "locked" as required by a sustaining foci he could allow the foci to sustain it for him even though it is still attached to his aura by an astral thread.

QUOTE
Not ignored. Simply taken as that -- it's not said. Logically, if they thought it was important, they'd have said it. They didn't, so until they decide something and post an errata, it stays as 'unimportant' to my mind.


Which doesn't make you correct in your interpretation, nor does it make them logical for forgetting or not considering this problem. If that were true there would be no errata at all and no need to debate broken rules.

QUOTE
How does any definition of sustaining imply utilizing aspects of it? If you want to house rule that sustaining means 'sustaining and using', feel free. That's changing the definition of sustaining.


First, this is a straw man argument right? Dictionary dot com does not deal with magic or SR game concepts or terminology. If I give you a set of American auto manufacturing standards for the minimum surface area of rear view mirrors and then ask you a question on European rear view window design is that fair? There may be similarities, but every aspect will not be covered.

QUOTE
If you can't understand set theory (I think it was grade 10 that I learned it), then that's a whole different problem. The logic, on the other hand, is university level.


Well, I only barely passed 10th grade. I am not proud of that. The only reason I did pass that grade is because I was a state champion wrestler and the head coach and assistant coach both passed me in their classes so I could continue into the next semester and still be able to wrestle. I got the back of my head slammed into a wall locker when the coach palm punched me on the forehead for it he was so mad. That didn't seem to spur me to higher education though, so I am at a disadvantage to someone of your caliber... My point is, you can act smarmy and all high and mighty with me all you want, but logic I have plenty of. Don't even try to insult me that way, smart boy.

QUOTE
I can't teach you logic -- I don't have that kind of time, and from your statement about not understanding mine, you wouldn't be able to understand the tools used -- one of which is using symbols to get rid of fluff in statements.


I was born in the 50s. That means I have lived in 6 decades now. I always say that I can learn something from a younger man. I'm sure I might of missed a thing or two down thru the years. But if you are trying to sound superior, you can stuff that where the sun don't shine, it don't impress me a bit.

QUOTE
Changing their mind is irrelevent -- they created the world, what they say goes. If they decide after a while they don't like something, or that something was vague, that's their business. They aren't obligated to clarify things because someone misinterprets the word 'sustains'.


This doesn't mean my interpretation of sustains is wrong and it doesn't mean that they didn't over look this part of foci, or not think they were being clear that non passive spells would not work in foci as the rules exist now.

QUOTE
whenever you're sustaining the spell, you have the 'using it' penalty too.. which doesn't make sense, because you can cast the spell on something and not levitate it away -- and you'd still have +2 for sustaining.. but you shouldn't have ANY for 'using'.


This is a good point. But it is just as easy to assume having a spell in the constant ready position takes as much concentration to keep it in some sort of holding pattern.

QUOTE
Likewise, just because they don't say something doesn't mean they overlook it. They might not have cared -- they seem to have something for magic fingers, so it seems more likely, and more reasonable, to assume that they don't think it matters with levitate.


I think it more reasonable to assume they over looked something this powerful. Or else they assumed the rules were clear enough that non passive spells are not allowed in spell foci at all. That sounds much more reasonable to me.

QUOTE
When I suggested a +.1 TN, it's based on my personal believes which indicate that it is fairly trivial. It's quite possible that Shadowrun requires a heavier degree of concentration then I think is needed


Considering the movement penalty just for walking and firing I would say a lot more. +2 is supported by my interpretation, and it is fair as well, even other of my opponents have agreed to that even if you don't.
Dawnshadow
A couple major points:

1) Saying levitate in a sustaining focus can move only in LOS is a funny issue, because you don't need to see to move anything. You can still open a pop can with your eyes blindfolded, or even write (although it's not usually neat). It can be argued either way -- it depends on how you define telekinetic manipulations. If it's 'move it up/down/right/left/sideways' then it shouldn't need line of sight, if it's 'move it over there' then it should. But, that's a non-issue really. The spell doesn't end when it goes out of line of sight, according to canon. You still have the ability, it's just not useable until you can see the object again.

2)
QUOTE

Page 38: Target Numbers
The gamemaster determines the target number necessairy for success in a test. The Difficulty Number Table on p.92 of the Skills section provides a list of target numbers based on the difficulty of the activity-- 4 for average tasks, 10 for nearly impossible tasks, and so on. In most cases the rules specify a target number for specific skill uses. Circumstances and conditions (bad weather, stress, acting while moving, and so on) can change the target number. No target number can be less than 2. If modifiers reduce the target number below 2, consider the target number a 2 for purposes of making tests.

Modifiers
The Shadowrun rules often call for a plus or minus modifier to a test. These modifiers can result from injuries and situational factors that affect what the character is trying to do. Unless otherwise stated, that modifier is applied to the target number. Thus, a -3 modifier to a Target Number 5 produces a modified target number of 5-3, or 2.
If the rules call for +2 dice, or -1 dice, the player adds or subtracts that number of dice from the dice for the test. Thus, a shaman who has +2 dice for summoning certain nature spirits adds 2 more dice to the usual number he can roll for that test.


I bolded the part I consider most relevent -- the word can under Target Numbers. What that means, logically and grammatically, is that there is that it changes the target number a measurable amount of the time. It doesn't mean that it will, just that it can.

3) Nowhere in sustaining foci does it say that it removes the need for all concentration and attention. What it says is that it maintains the spell without concentration and attention. That one specific case of attention -- the only one, in terms of spells like armour. In the case of control thoughts, control actions, and levitate, it may or may not be the only one, depending on how you decide. Any argument that sustaining foci preclude concentrating on something other than maintaining the spell is counter to canon -- because what sustaining foci do is explained quite well, and is quite specific to 'maintaining' the spell. It even says in the next paragraph that: 'The owner casts the spell, activating the focus, which then automatically sustains the spell.' That's all it does.. it doesn't use the spell, it doesn't affect the use of the spell. If it did something more than that, then it would have to be specified.

Now, on to specific points:

QUOTE
QUOTE
There is evidence that performing telekinetic manipulations is more difficult than performing the same manipulations with your own hands. It's not the same thing, however, as saying that using telekinetic manipulations requires concentration.


Huh? This has nothing to do with the argument. Telekinetic manipulations are more difficult than physical manipulations, but that statement does not mean telekinetic manipulations require concentration. What's your point? I disagree with you though. If the subject of the spell is required to be in LOS it requires concentration to manipulate it. Zero effort equals zero output.


I disagree with your premise that telekinetic manipulations are more difficult then physical? Why is that? To physically manipulate someone you have your own physical limitations, whereas telekinetics have no such physical limitations. If you want an example, arm length for a large box with no hand holds. Likewise, there's no way to argue that using telekinesis is more difficult then using your hands -- unless you know a telekinetic and have asked. I don't know any -- but from my experience, psychic abilities are non-issues to use.

QUOTE
QUOTE
The +2 sustaining penalty comes from sustaining a spell, not from channelling mana into it, concentrating on it, having physical strain due to mana coursing through you into it, having a headache, or even thinking about your last hot piece of ass. Its from sustaining the spell.


I don't see that in canon. I don't see any difference in the concentration involved in using the spell as the +2 TN modifier.


Um.. You're right, canon doesn't say it's from sustaining the spell. But, levitate requires all the same things as armour, plus the possible inclusion of 'using it' -- barrier just requires sustained, which has a +2 modifier, so levitate must require sustained, for a +2 TN. Anything that gets around that is broken, because then you open the door to designing spells that are easier to sustain -- because levitate would imply that it is possible.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Running around is done without any actions, however performing actions may have penalties associated with them for running while you do them.


Just like levitating has penalties associated with it for moving about while you perform other actions.


'may' is the key word there. It's not 'will' or 'does', those aren't even mentioned. If you invoke a running modifier on an athletics test for running faster, you're just being silly. Shooting on the other hand, yes, gets a running modifier, because you have to compensate for your motion and momentum, and their motion.

QUOTE
You can't even walk, let alone fight a troll

Blindfighting applies -- you look at the object, not the troll.

And... I can walk backwards, without hitting things? Can't run backwards, but that's a problem with the way knees bend -- don't know if I could run blindfolded, but I expect if I knew the area reasonably well I could.

QUOTE

Only if you ignore a whole bunch of canon and common sense.


Please do not say that canon must be ignored without ever quoting said canon. The stuff on p.38 does not support your argument, it simply allows for a GM to impose a TN based on your argument. It's quoted at the top of this post.

QUOTE
QUOTE
That's like saying that just because someone is arrogant and antisociable, their argument that 'drugs are bad because they (insert long speech about the side affects of street drugs)' is wrong or irrational. Quite simply, it's not the case.. the person delivering the argument is irrelevent to the argument.


No it is like saying exactly what I said. Many posters are here attacking the messenger without adding anything to the debate at all. Just because I disagree with a person's argument is no reason to oppose everything I say or feel threatened. There is no shame in losing a debate with me by those who know me. I sense much of the flaming is generated by out of control egos rather than rational thought, that is a common youthful mistake.


What you said is that almost everything has just been from egoists. That is not the same thing.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Now... how do you get a +2 TN from giving someone else 'increased quickness' as per the spell? The caster isn't even the subject of the spell, or controlling the affects of the spell, all he can do is drop the spell.


The caster is controlling the effects of the spell. If those effects could be "locked" as required by a sustaining foci he could allow the foci to sustain it for him even though it is still attached to his aura by an astral thread.


How? The effects of the spell, in numeric terms, are easy-- +x quickness. But in game terms? The subject is moving faster, so he's running faster, he's dodging more, he's reacting faster. He's doing better in everything quickness based. And, the most important part, the caster doesn't get to decide if the subject uses any of these increased abilities. The caster doesn't even know, unless he's watching. If the caster was controlling the effects, the caster could decide that the subject IS grabbing the foci off the other mage's neck -- or at very least, influence the caster to that.

This is an example of 'Reducio Ad Absurdum' -- reduce to an absurdity. It's a form of counterargument that involves taking something someone said, and without using anything which is not certain, derive a contradiction, which should be obvious in this case: the caster cannot influence the subject with the spell.

QUOTE
QUOTE
How does any definition of sustaining imply utilizing aspects of it? If you want to house rule that sustaining means 'sustaining and using', feel free. That's changing the definition of sustaining.


First, this is a straw man argument right? Dictionary dot com does not deal with magic or SR game concepts or terminology. If I give you a set of American auto manufacturing standards for the minimum surface area of rear view mirrors and then ask you a question on European rear view window design is that fair? There may be similarities, but every aspect will not be covered.


It's not a straw man argument -- It's including a definition of a key word. Dictionary.com does not deal with magic, or games terminology, it deals with definitions of words-- and without any evidence to the contrary, all words have the same meaning in SR terminology as in normal useage. Sustaining is not redefined anywhere. Sustaining a spell is given an explanation in terms of sustaining -- and since sustaining is not redefined, it must therefore use the standard meaning.

Unless the meaning of the word changes at some point, it's a very valid consideration. But, for the meaning of the word to have changed, it would have to be explicity stated.

QUOTE
QUOTE
If you can't understand set theory (I think it was grade 10 that I learned it), then that's a whole different problem. The logic, on the other hand, is university level.


Well, I only barely passed 10th grade. I am not proud of that. The only reason I did pass that grade is because I was a state champion wrestler and the head coach and assistant coach both passed me in their classes so I could continue into the next semester and still be able to wrestle. I got the back of my head slammed into a wall locker when the coach palm punched me on the forehead for it he was so mad. That didn't seem to spur me to higher education though, so I am at a disadvantage to someone of your caliber... My point is, you can act smarmy and all high and mighty with me all you want, but logic I have plenty of. Don't even try to insult me that way, smart boy.


Whether or not you passed high school, and the reasons behind it, is not relevent (although it does justify the concept of charity in assuming you weren't just ignoring the entire argument because you didn't like it). What is relevent, is that I'm trying to explain using precise logical terminology and techniques, but you're rejecting them because you aren't aware of them. That is what many people were getting at, without knowing your particular circumstances. Most everyone who quoted any time of logical fallacy, has at least a moderate awareness of what those fallacies are, and in general it is assumed that any other person will have an equivalent knowledge in those fallacies -- if only because they are capable of looking them up.

Likewise.. and I hate admitting this.. it was 'boy genius', not smart boy, in high school.

QUOTE
QUOTE
I can't teach you logic -- I don't have that kind of time, and from your statement about not understanding mine, you wouldn't be able to understand the tools used -- one of which is using symbols to get rid of fluff in statements.


I was born in the 50s. That means I have lived in 6 decades now. I always say that I can learn something from a younger man. I'm sure I might of missed a thing or two down thru the years. But if you are trying to sound superior, you can stuff that where the sun don't shine, it don't impress me a bit.


Sounding superior would be referencing the marks in which courses pertain to logic. What I said is a statement of fact, and an opinion which I believe is justified based on your lack of understanding of set theory, which is fundamental to several forms of logic -- unfortunately, they explained in the second half of the courses.

QUOTE
QUOTE
whenever you're sustaining the spell, you have the 'using it' penalty too.. which doesn't make sense, because you can cast the spell on something and not levitate it away -- and you'd still have +2 for sustaining.. but you shouldn't have ANY for 'using'.


This is a good point. But it is just as easy to assume having a spell in the constant ready position takes as much concentration to keep it in some sort of holding pattern.


Are you saying that you'd apply a +2 TN to cast the spell and not even start to move it? To leaving it just sitting on the ground? Because that's the type of thing I'm referencing.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Likewise, just because they don't say something doesn't mean they overlook it. They might not have cared -- they seem to have something for magic fingers, so it seems more likely, and more reasonable, to assume that they don't think it matters with levitate.


I think it more reasonable to assume they over looked something this powerful. Or else they assumed the rules were clear enough that non passive spells are not allowed in spell foci at all. That sounds much more reasonable to me.


I disagree -- since 'passive' spells are referenced nowhere in canon. You're making extra distinctions and including them in canon because to your mind, it doesn't make sense not to have them. That's fine, but it's not canon, and should not be imposed upon the designers.

QUOTE
QUOTE
When I suggested a +.1 TN, it's based on my personal believes which indicate that it is fairly trivial. It's quite possible that Shadowrun requires a heavier degree of concentration then I think is needed


Considering the movement penalty just for walking and firing I would say a lot more. +2 is supported by my interpretation, and it is fair as well, even other of my opponents have agreed to that even if you don't.


Walking and firing is logical -- but not because of the concentration of walking. If it was because of the concentration of walking, it would apply to every test, instead of just ranged weapons. What seems more reasonable about walking and firing, is that it is because you have to compensate for your walking, your momentum, and the momentum imposed upon the bullet.

It's physics, and somewhat advanced, but I might be able to explain it. I'll give it a shot at least.

When you're walking, you and everything on you is moving at a certain velocity compared to everything else. That gives momentum, which doesn't change when something leaves your hand. That's why you can throw a ball straight up while walking, and it comes down on your hand, as long as you are moving at a constant speed and the throw isn't high enough that friction slows it down.

But, that also means that throwing a ball straight sideways while walking (for instance, a target), at the exact moment you pass the target, will not strike -- no matter how good your aim while stationary. The ball continues to go forward at the same velocity you did, as well as sideways towards the target.. so it will strike beside the target.

Now, expand that onto bullets over a larger distance, and you start to see where the modifier comes in. You can't aim AT the target, you have to aim relative to the target. Running is worse because the velocities are higher.
Herald of Verjigorm
Line of sight does not mean you must be looking at it. It just means there must be an uninterrupted path for light to travel between mage and target. The mage must also know of the object, so it is much easier to be looking at the target as you cast the spell (cuts down on the GM deciding to apply blind-fire penalties to your sorcery test). With some spells, actually seeing valid targets is irrelevant, like manaball can and will hit targets behind you if you center the spell on yourself.
ShadowGhost
QUOTE (Herald of Verjigorm)
With some spells, actually seeing valid targets is irrelevant, like manaball can and will hit targets behind you if you center the spell on yourself.

Ummm - nope - Manaball is LOS. If you can't see the target, you can't affect it, even if you know it is there.

Elemental Manipulation spells however, will work like this - they are treated as ranged combat - so you can hit targets you aren't even aware of, much less can see.

As for this whole arguement - The Focus just sustains the spell for you - you don't lose control of the spell.

I look at it as the difference between a golfer carrying his own clubs, or using a caddy to carry them for him.

The caddy merely saves him the effort of carrying the clubs on top of all the walking, etc. Directing the caddy to wait, follow you, move over there, hand you a club etc wouldn't impose an TN to anything else, just as screaming when you attack in melee, shouting while firing a gun, gesturing with a free hand while shooting a pistol, etc doesn't impose a TN modifier.

Moving something around with levitate in a sustaining focus IMO would simply be a free action, just like a street sam with Smartlink-2 and a smartlinked firearm would use a free action to cybernetically eject a clip.

If someone wants to do the big levitate ballet dance and all the spells are sustained by foci, then they would have a target number to achieve this, just like someone using a Juggle skill trying to juggle 6 balls at the same time would have a TN to accomplish this without dropping a ball. That TN for juggling is purely up to the GM.

Moving someone through a complicated maze without touching walls or hitting alarm laser beams - that would be Test, with a TN determined by the GM.

As for walking/running while firing TN modifier that's because as you walk or run, your shoulders, hips, knees and head all bob up and down.... as your weight transfers from one leg to another your hips and shoulders change angles - one side goes up and the other goes down slightly. All those those things royally screw up your aim.

Just watch any video where the cameraman is walking or running - the picture bounces up and down and side to side... and that's what your view is when aiming, and why the TN modifers for walking/running.

That TN modifier is for ranged combat - it doesn't apply to casting spells, except for Elemental Manipulations, which are treated as ranged combat.

When it comes to casting spells, there are no Canon Target Modifiers for walking or running at all, with the exception of Elemental Manipulation spells.
Herald of Verjigorm
QUOTE (ShadowGhost @ Mar 19 2005, 02:17 PM)
QUOTE (Herald of Verjigorm)
With some spells, actually seeing valid targets is irrelevant, like manaball can and will hit targets behind you if you center the spell on yourself.

Ummm - nope - Manaball is LOS. If you can't see the target, you can't affect it, even if you know it is there.

You misread my comments (or I mistyped them). Manaball hits every valid target in the sphere to which there is LoS from the caster. The caster does not need to be looking in that direction, just that there must be a path. Elemental manipulations only need LoS to the detonation point, and can hit targets to which there is no LoS from the mage.
Kagetenshi
Interesting. Do you have a quote backing that? I would follow that up with a question about where LOS is considered to originate from, but that's a question that has already been determined to have no canon answer.

~J
SuperSpy
QUOTE (Herald of Verjigorm)
Manaball hits every valid target in the sphere to which there is LoS from the caster. The caster does not need to be looking in that direction, just that there must be a path.

Sorry, that's wrong.

QUOTE ("SR3 page 182")
An area spell affects all valid targets within its radius.
Make the Sorcery Test and compare the result to the target
numbers of all valid targets. If a person or object in the area of
effect is not a valid target, they are not affected by the spell.
Someone completely concealed behind a wall within the radius
of a Powerball spell would not be affected by the spell (since
the caster cannot see them
), even though the spell might
reduce the wall to smoking rubble.


Emphasis mine.
Sharaloth
QUOTE ("shadowrunrpg.com FAQ")
If a magician holds up his hand, or a piece of paper, or whatever, to block a target from his vision, does that mean they're not a "valid target" for an area effect spell? In SR3, do magicians who try to intentionally limit their area effect spells suffer some penalties or chance of spell misfire?
In FanPro's opinion, no GM should allow players to get away with this kind of stunt without penalty. A magician who plays these sorts of mind games with himself is asking for it--any attempt to thwart the intent of a spell simply causes it to fail outright, but the caster gets slammed with the Drain anyway.
If the GM wants to allow players to get away with tricks like this, then apply the cover modifier that the caster wishes to give the excluded target to the TN of the spell. If the caster wants to give the excluded target total cover (anything less and the spell affects them--except in the case of elemental manipulations), then the spell's TN increases by 8 (equivalent to blind fire, a +8 modifier). The magician could, of course, center against this penalty. If the caster wants to pull this stunt with multiple targets, the penalties stack unless the targets are very close together, in the GM's opinion. (Just imagine trying to block two specific people entirely out of your field of vision in a crowd.) If you want to be really cruel, apply the TN modifiers to the spell's Drain Test, too.


This interesting ruling in the FAQ brings up some questions on whether either is possible or valid. Under this ruling (not the 'spell fails automatically' bit, but the other one) then you COULD hit targets behind you with a manaball grounded on yourself. You'd get a +8 TN modifier (to all targets? Or just the one you're trying not to hit?), but you could do it.

Me, I would rule the FAQ silly, and say if you can't see it, you can't hit it.
ShadowGhost
With Combat spells - LOS means you can see the target - i.e you are currently looking at the target; not whether there are no objects between you and the target.... otherwise you could cast combat spells in a completely dark room and still hit targets, even though you cannot see them.

To my mind, Blind Fire + Combat spells are incompatible - if you do not see it, you cannot affect it. Cover and visibility modifiers on the other hand, are another story, and do affect TNs for many spells.

However, we houserule that once visibility modifiers reach +8 or higher - it is Blind Fire, but cover modifiers still stack on top of that.
Tarantula
QUOTE
QUOTE
The +2 sustaining penalty comes from sustaining a spell, not from channelling mana into it, concentrating on it, having physical strain due to mana coursing through you into it, having a headache, or even thinking about your last hot piece of ass. Its from sustaining the spell.


I don't see that in canon. I don't see any difference in the concentration involved in using the spell as the +2 TN modifier.

Now that I have my books again...
"As long as the caster concentrates on the spell it remains in effect." Under sustained spells. I'll amend my statement to read sustaining a spell requires concentration on the spell.

This means, to sustain your armor spell, you concentrate on it. To sustaing levitate, you concentrate on it, to sustain anything else, you concentrate on it. Under sustaining foci: "A sustaining focus is used to 'lock' a sustain spell, maintaining it without attention or concentration on the part of the caster." Meaning, now the focus sustains the spell, you don't need to concentrate on the spell any longer.

Under Levitate: "Levitate allows the caster to telekinetically lift an object and move it around. The subject of the spell can be moved anywhere in the caster's line of sight at a rate of" blah blah blah.

I also amend my statement, you can't make anyone move that is not in your line of sight, even if they have a sustaing focus on them. Furthermore, you don't nessesarily have to look AT them to have them in your line of sight. For example, right now I'm looking at the text box that I'm typing it. I can also see a box to my lower left, a pop can, a popcorn can, 2 speakers, a yellow piece of paper, a pen, a pack of gum, some change, my computer tower, a clock, my mouse, keyboard, my hands, my cellphone, the top part of the sr3 book in my lap, my lower legs under the desk, the desk itself, 2 of the 3 drawers in the desk. The piece of paper i use as a mouse pad.

That was all through peripheral vision. I didn't move my eyes at all, from the text box, while typing that. Now, moving my eyes but not my head, I can see some clothes over past the box on my left. Numerous more scraps of paper on the top of the desk, a cellphone earpiece cord, a usb cord ending, the third desk drawer, headphones next to my computer case, some CDs they're sitting on, and a piece of paper under my computer tower.

All of those were in my line of sight. Sure, I couldn't specifically pick out all the scraps of paper that were mostly covered up by other things without looking directly at them, but the light reflecting off them was entering my eye, putting them in my line of sight.

As long as by moving your eyes only, you could see them, they count as line of sight. Just as when driving, you focus in front of you, but you usually can spot if someone is passing you up on the side, or if your passenger points at something excitedly.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Using a sustaining focus to sustain a spell, allows the focus to take over sustaining the spell for you, removing that penalty.


But it also says it takes away the concentration and attention, which is impossible to do with levitate, so a levitate would not work in a foci. Only passive spells would.

No, it isn't impossible to do. Levitate requires concentration because it is a sustained spell. The concentration required is to sustain the spell. The requirements to use the spell, are to have LOS to the target, and for the spell to be sustained. Since the focus is removing the need to concentrate on the spell for it to be sustained, all that is left is for the target to be within the casters LOS, and the caster can move them about with no effort whatsoever. Just as easily as wanting them to go from there to there.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Thats you. Show me the quote that says you must concentrate on the motion of the object for the entire duration of its journey. Why can't you simply think "Move 10 meters that way." Then proceed to ponder ass, calculus, and Bubba the Love Troll while said object moves that direction at whatever rate of speed it can. Canon doesn't say.


According to the spell description, the object must be in LOS to be moved. If you close your eyes you no longer have line of sight and the subject will stop moving by canon. Show me where you can send something on auto pilot. And explain what would happen if it was intercepted, if all you have to do is visualize where it goes and close your eyes. No, you are forgetting the object must be in LOS. Every time you blink the object will plummet to the ground. By canon. This tells us that it requires constant concentration. Requiring concentration is directly at odds with sustaining foci, so either levitate is not allowed to be used with a foci, or it still has the +2 TN modifier for sustaining concentration on the spell.

I never said close yoru eyes, I said, think it move over there, and proceed to think about your hot ass. Look at the porn ad over on that wall over there, as long as the target is in your vision, its fine.
Semantic point here: movement is defined as faster than 0 velocity. If you blink, it could be argued that they stop, and float. Why? Because staying the same altitude, as well as everything else, is not moving. Falling would constitue movement, which isn't allowed without line of sight.

It does NOT tell you contant concentration. As I said before, simply because something is in your line of sight, does NOT mean you are concentrating on it. I'm certainly not concentrating on the pack of gum on my desk, or the empty popcan over there, but they're both in my line of sight, and validly I could duct tape a sustaining focus to them, cast it on them, and then use that to move my mouse around for me while I type to my hearts content.

QUOTE
QUOTE
I can say, 'Canon doesn't give you any TN penalty for eating food while trying to do anything, there should be one.


You could say that, but you would be wrong according to canon on page 38 of the core rule book under TNs. There is nothing wrong with my argument. The rule is the problem because of it's contradictions and vagary.


Anything the rulebook doesn't explicitly allow, is implicitly denied. Let me say that again. If the rulebook doesn't say you can do it, you can not. Likewise, if the rulebook doesn't say if it works a certain way, it doesn't work that way. Canon says the penalty for the spell is removed with the focus. It is removed. Canon says that you can move something in LOS with your mind, you can. No penalty, as the focus removes that.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Canon also doesn't divide sustained spells into simple and complex ones. They're all simply 'sustained'. Stating that levitation takes any more effort than armor, is basing off 'common sense' which while I agree with, it is not canon which is the discussion at hand.


You are either trying to use a broken rule to say I am wrong, or you are supporting the same? I can't quite figure which it is. Either way, I have never said there were simple or complex spells, I have said there are passive and active spells, without the support of a foci they both require constant concentration to produce the effects. Only passive spells can be placed into foci and conform to the rules due to the requirement of continued concentration to produce spell effects on non passive spells. I quite honestly don't know any easier way to say that.


A broken rule or not. It is STILL a RULE. Rules are followed, and discussed on the boards. Just because it is broken, doesn't follow common sense, or anything else, doesn't change the fact it is a rule, and canon, and not following it is breaking the rules. By the rules, you are WRONG. That is what I am saying.

QUOTE
QUOTE

Cannonly, you can levitate an object through a sustained focus without any penalty. It doesn't say how you levitate the object, so you can do it in a way that requires effectely no concentration on your part.


First I would not make that assumption at all. That is conjecture, unsupported by canon. That interpretation quite literally ignores LOS restriction stated in the text of the spell description.

Canonly, you can levitate an object with the spell levitate. It has some restrictions, the spell must be sustained, and the target must be within LOS of the caster. Canonly, you can use a sustaining focus to sustain the spell at no penalty to the caster. Canonly, you can levitate an object using a sustaining focus and the levitate spell without any penalty. As long as the target remains within LOS of the caster.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Even out of line-of-sight you can, as its the focus sustaining it. The spell has been cast and is sustained, allowing the caster to move the target. You're almost garunteeably hit something with them, but you could make them float around.


You are changing the spell. please reread it. It is not a simple LOS spell it says line of sight is needed to move objects in the description of the spell. Close your eyes and LOS is broken. The ride could get quite bumpy if the caster is prone to hay fever. Don't make the mistake of giving more ability to the foci than it has. There is no auto pilot function or ability granted by the foci. I have no idea how the spell could be "locked" in place in the first place since the spell needs constant input to change it's effects, which require no concentration, and no LOS...? Also, for support and reference, I went back to second addition to read the levitate description and found this quote; "A magician can move a levitated object anywhere as long as the spell is maintained and the target stays in view". True this is third edition, but it is helpful to point out the obvious. Common sense tells you that it is impossible to move an object with your mind if you don't even have to look at where the object is going. That is all I have been trying to say all along. If you have to watch a flying object to keep it flying you can't even walk safely let alone fight a troll.

I did not have my books with me. You do need LOS to levitate any object around. I was wrong in what I had said.

Next: As long as it is in your LOS, you don't need to look directly at it. You can see a lot of things and only be focusing on one. Its possible.
Tarantula
QUOTE (ShadowGhost)
With Combat spells - LOS means you can see the target - i.e you are currently looking at the target; not whether there are no objects between you and the target.... otherwise you could cast combat spells in a completely dark room and still hit targets, even though you cannot see them.

To my mind, Blind Fire + Combat spells are incompatible - if you do not see it, you cannot affect it. Cover and visibility modifiers on the other hand, are another story, and do affect TNs for many spells.

However, we houserule that once visibility modifiers reach +8 or higher - it is Blind Fire, but cover modifiers still stack on top of that.

Actually its with any spells.

QUOTE ("SR3 @ pg178, Range")

For most spells, the range is line of sight (LOS or simply sight). If the caster can see the target, regardless of distance, the target can be affected.


Not if the caster could see, but can see, meaning light from the target is currently entering the casters eyes, or the caster is astrally seeing the target.
Dog
Now I understand what a strawman is, thanks! Unfortunately, I expect that it won't be long before I'll need to use the term.... biggrin.gif
Critias
Don't let Blackhand confuse the issue, Dog. Instead of clicking on any of the links or understanding any of the explanations given to him, he seems to think "Straw Man" is just a generic term meaning "argument I disagree with." It's like it's his favorite new phrase or something, reading some of his more recent posts.
ShadowGhost
QUOTE (Tarantula)
QUOTE (ShadowGhost @ Mar 19 2005, 01:54 PM)
With Combat spells - LOS means you can see the target - i.e you are currently looking at the target; not whether there are no objects between you and the target.... otherwise you could cast combat spells in a completely dark room and still hit targets, even though you cannot see them.

To my mind, Blind Fire + Combat spells are incompatible - if you do not see it, you cannot affect it. Cover and visibility modifiers on the other hand, are another story, and do affect TNs for many spells.

However, we houserule that once visibility modifiers reach +8 or higher - it is Blind Fire, but cover modifiers still stack on top of that.

Actually its with any spells.

Touch range spells do not require LOS.
Tarantula
Read the quote, by "any spells" I meant any spells relevant to the discussion, meaning any spells with a range of line-of-sight.
Dog
Thanks Critias, et al. I did check the links. 'preciate it.
Rory Blackhand
QUOTE
1) Saying levitate in a sustaining focus can move only in LOS is a funny issue, because you don't need to see to move anything. You can still open a pop can with your eyes blindfolded, or even write (although it's not usually neat).


Though you may be able to open a pop can by feel is irrelevant. A straw man argument? The spell says line of sight. If you close your eyes your line of sight is blocked by your eye lids. By canon.

QUOTE
1)It can be argued either way -- it depends on how you define telekinetic manipulations. If it's 'move it up/down/right/left/sideways' then it shouldn't need line of sight, if it's 'move it over there' then it should.


Why is it ok for you to say it shouldn't need line of sight, when the spell description clear as day says you need line of sight, but I can't suggest there should be a difference between passive and active spells without getting lynched by an angry mob?

QUOTE
But, that's a non-issue really. The spell doesn't end when it goes out of line of sight, according to canon. You still have the ability, it's just not useable until you can see the object again.


Non issue?Unless we suspend reason and say it can be sustained by a focus in the first place, the spell otherwise DOES end when it goes out of LOS or if you stop concentrating on it. By canon. So your first "major point" is wrong.

Point 2, I agree with you. I referenced the page for corroboration of my contention.

QUOTE
3) Nowhere in sustaining foci does it say that it removes the need for all concentration and attention.


Huh? It does not say SOME of the concentration is eliminated. It says a foci will maintain the spell WITHOUT CONCENTRATION OR ATTENTION. Obviously a levitate needs attention for it to work. Nor do I interpret "locked" to mean you can change spell effects after a spell is sustained by a focus. It is simply not compatable for use with a foci.

QUOTE
because what sustaining foci do is explained quite well, and is quite specific to 'maintaining' the spell.


I agree, don't leave out the part that it is "locked" or that it can't be concentrated on either though. This means only passive spells will work with foci if you think about it with logic.

QUOTE
'may' is the key word there. It's not 'will' or 'does', those aren't even mentioned. If you invoke a running modifier on an athletics test for running faster, you're just being silly. Shooting on the other hand, yes, gets a running modifier, because you have to compensate for your motion and momentum, and their motion.


I'm not asking for a penalty increase with meters per turn of movement increased. Moving it any distance in 3 seconds is enough for a penalty as far as I am concerned.

QUOTE
I could run blindfolded, but I expect if I knew the area reasonably well I could.


This has to be a strawman? If you can run a few steps in the dark it must mean you can move an object in the dark with your mind. If you place a foci on a friend, get blind folded, enter a large chamber where you can't see your friend, are you trying to say you would be able to levitate him? I fail to see where the foci allows you to know exactly where it is at all times. Or break the line of sight restrictions.

QUOTE
Are you saying that you'd apply a +2 TN to cast the spell and not even start to move it? To leaving it just sitting on the ground? Because that's the type of thing I'm referencing.


If you are sustaining it on your own, yes. I am saying by canon the +2 moddifier for sustaining interprets logically to mean using the spell effects.

Just because the spells are not sub divided into passive and active doesn't mean those sub divisions do not exist. The designers are not perfect.

QUOTE
Walking and firing is logical -- but not because of the concentration of walking. If it was because of the concentration of walking, it would apply to every test, instead of just ranged weapons. What seems more reasonable about walking and firing, is that it is because you have to compensate for your walking, your momentum, and the momentum imposed upon the bullet.


Well, we can't expect every aspect of existence to be coded into numbers can we? I would impose a penalty on you if you were walking and repairing a car, is a set number required? No. Is it canon to penalize walking and repairing a car. Yes. It is covered on page 38 as I said. It is logical and up to the referee. Should there be no penalty for walking and repairing a car? No. That would be unrealistic. Just like it is unrealistic to think you can levitate an object without looking at it and concentrating on performing the task, when the spell says the subject must be in LOS. My argument is +2 per levitation is reasonable and is canon.

QUOTE
Line of sight does not mean you must be looking at it.


Yes it does. Or it would say within a certain radius. I think my argument is supported by the original description of the spell in SR2 "A magician can move a levitated object anywhere as long as the spell is maintained and the target stays in view" The subject has to stay in view. Line of sight means just what it says, there is no line of site with blind fire. Either you can see the subject or you can't, there is no guessing.

QUOTE

I look at it as the difference between a golfer carrying his own clubs, or using a caddy to carry them for him.


I'll go for that. But the caddy won't hand you clubs. It just carries them since the spell is "locked". My example of a vacuum cleaner is better. You can turn it on, but if you don't push it around it just sucks empty air. Foci are designed so you don't have to do anything, ie...in your example, you don't get to even swing at the ball anymore, making levitate a useless spell to use with a foci.

QUOTE
Moving something around with levitate in a sustaining focus IMO would simply be a free action, just like a street sam with Smartlink-2 and a smartlinked firearm would use a free action to cybernetically eject a clip.


That is a bad example, because it is the smart link that is making you so fast that it takes no time in game terms.

QUOTE
If someone wants to do the big levitate ballet dance and all the spells are sustained by foci, then they would have a target number to achieve this, just like someone using a Juggle skill trying to juggle 6 balls at the same time would have a TN to accomplish this without dropping a ball. That TN for juggling is purely up to the GM.

Moving someone through a complicated maze without touching walls or hitting alarm laser beams - that would be Test, with a TN determined by the GM.


You might have a good point here. But this assumes a complex action. Others are saying it is a non action, that it is somehow even better than a free action because you could do this with no concentration like the foci description says. That is quite unreasonable and canon does not support it.

QUOTE

As for walking/running while firing TN modifier that's because as you walk or run, your shoulders, hips, knees and head all bob up and down.... as your weight transfers from one leg to another your hips and shoulders change angles - one side goes up and the other goes down slightly. All those those things royally screw up your aim.


Some people are able to walk from the waist down. Tennis players are able to bounce around and focus their vision like a raptor's, where the body kind of moves and flows to keep the head stable. A better description would be having to focus on two things at once. As I mentioned above, if you were repairing your car while walking along I would apply walking penalties to the TN, at least.

QUOTE
Manaball hits every valid target in the sphere to which there is LoS from the caster. The caster does not need to be looking in that direction, just that there must be a path. Elemental manipulations only need LoS to the detonation point, and can hit targets to which there is no LoS from the mage.


I disagree. Line of Sight is what the caster is physically able to see in a straight line from his front facing. I count peripheral vision in the line of sight.

QUOTE
Interesting. Do you have a quote backing that? I would follow that up with a question about where LOS is considered to originate from, but that's a question that has already been determined to have no canon answer.


Kagentashi, has this actually been argued too? How unbelievable. If I can't even get a consensus on LOS I might as well give up with this argument.

QUOTE
This interesting ruling in the FAQ brings up some questions on whether either is possible or valid. Under this ruling (not the 'spell fails automatically' bit, but the other one) then you COULD hit targets behind you with a manaball grounded on yourself. You'd get a +8 TN modifier (to all targets? Or just the one you're trying not to hit?), but you could do it.

Me, I would rule the FAQ silly, and say if you can't see it, you can't hit it.


I agree the faq is silly, but only because this applies to just the mages trying to play games with the spell and intentionally block part of the targets. I do not interpret it to mean targets behind you would be effected, they are out of line of sight legitimately, not thru holding one eye shut to not see half the area or hiding a potential target behind your hand.

QUOTE
To my mind, Blind Fire + Combat spells are incompatible - if you do not see it, you cannot affect it. Cover and visibility modifiers on the other hand, are another story, and do affect TNs for many spells.


I totally agree. I just also think non passive spells and foci are not compatable either.

QUOTE
Now that I have my books again...
"As long as the caster concentrates on the spell it remains in effect." Under sustained spells. I'll amend my statement to read sustaining a spell requires concentration on the spell.


Thank you.

QUOTE
Under sustaining foci: "A sustaining focus is used to 'lock' a sustain spell, maintaining it without attention or concentration on the part of the caster." Meaning, now the focus sustains the spell, you don't need to concentrate on the spell any longer.


Which puts it at odds with non passive spells, so in my argument makes it incompatible with them.

QUOTE
I also amend my statement, you can't make anyone move that is not in your line of sight, even if they have a sustaing focus on them.


Thank you.

QUOTE
Furthermore, you don't nessesarily have to look AT them to have them in your line of sight. For example, right now I'm looking at the text box that I'm typing it. I can also see a box to my lower left, a pop can, a popcorn can, 2 speakers, a yellow piece of paper, a pen, a pack of gum, some change, my computer tower, a clock, my mouse, keyboard, my hands, my cellphone, the top part of the sr3 book in my lap, my lower legs under the desk, the desk itself, 2 of the 3 drawers in the desk. The piece of paper i use as a mouse pad.


Wrong. All those things you just said were in your peripheral vision. If you can see them they are in your line of sight. If you close your eyes your eye lids block line of sight. Peripheral vision is why it is possible to even consider levitating 6 items at all. Once again, I support my argument with SR2 original description, that is a bit clearer, "A magician can move a levitated object anywhere as long as the spell is maintained and the target stays in view". Requiring line of sight is the same thing as saying the subject must "stay in view".

QUOTE
All of those were in my line of sight. Sure, I couldn't specifically pick out all the scraps of paper that were mostly covered up by other things without looking directly at them, but the light reflecting off them was entering my eye, putting them in my line of sight.


Great. You have given a wonderful description of peripheral vision, now imagine having to juggle with just peripheral vision. The task would be exponentially harder than physically juggling. The foci is not doing any bit of the work for you. It is only giving you the "ability" to manipulate the objects. The concentration to manipulate them is still required, and from my understanding this is the same +2 Tn for sustaining the spell. Can you write 2 different papers at the same time just because you can use both hands to scribble on two pieces of paper? The TN for doing that would get pretty high if you had 6 hands. You simply can't divide your attention that much even with using peripheral vision.

QUOTE
No, it isn't impossible to do. Levitate requires concentration because it is a sustained spell. The concentration required is to sustain the spell. The requirements to use the spell, are to have LOS to the target, and for the spell to be sustained. Since the focus is removing the need to concentrate on the spell for it to be sustained, all that is left is for the target to be within the casters LOS, and the caster can move them about with no effort whatsoever. Just as easily as wanting them to go from there to there.


Of course, I see the point you are trying to make, but you are leaving out a critical part of the foci description. It says the spell is "locked". To me this means no more manipulating the spell. So levitate would not be compatable, because it requires manipulating and attention to accomplish that. The foci is not going to guide the subject of the spell to where you want it to go for you. You just can't give that much power to a dog brained item. Your description does not take common sense or locking into effect. If you have to even look at an object to be able to levitate it this is giving it some attention. Your brain is not capable of forming the thoughts to move the object without any effort at all as you claim. That just does not make sense at all.

QUOTE
as long as the target is in your vision, its fine.


Not without a TN penalty it's not fine.

QUOTE
If you blink, it could be argued that they stop, and float. Why? Because staying the same altitude, as well as everything else, is not moving. Falling would constitue movement, which isn't allowed without line of sight.


No. It is your mind that is exerting the influence over the object to stay afloat and the direction and speed it is traveling. If you blink there is nothing to exert upward pressure any more. The foci does nothing, it is the caster controlling it that does all the work, which is incompatible with a foci, so shouldn't be allowed to be used with a foci at all.

QUOTE
It does NOT tell you contant concentration. As I said before, simply because something is in your line of sight, does NOT mean you are concentrating on it.


Yes, you told me that before and I told you before you are wrong. "A magician can move a levitated object anywhere as long as the spell is maintained and the target stays in view" In the 3rd edition description it says the caster can move an object in his line of sight. It does not say the foci moves an object around. The caster has to take the action, which requires concentration. Do you see my point of levitate not being compatable with foci?

QUOTE
I'm certainly not concentrating on the pack of gum on my desk, or the empty popcan over there, but they're both in my line of sight, and validly I could duct tape a sustaining focus to them, cast it on them, and then use that to move my mouse around for me while I type to my hearts content.


And levitating one object would not be much of a distraction, only a +2 to your typing skill, but if this seems excessive, keep in mind the rules are generalizations. The TN penalty has to cover all situations and uses. Imagine controlling one item to scratch your back. Another to bring the gum to you. etc...It could get complicated just sitting at your desk. To me this seems like a simple concept to grasp.

QUOTE
Anything the rulebook doesn't explicitly allow, is implicitly denied. Let me say that again. If the rulebook doesn't say you can do it, you can not.


I disagree. Does breathing get covered? You can't breath unless you can show me you can. How about taking a crap? Not everything is covered, but the rules do the best they can. The task is monumental to recreate day to day life with a SR flavor to it.

QUOTE
It is removed. Canon says that you can move something in LOS with your mind, you can. No penalty, as the focus removes that.


The focus only removes the need to power the spell. It does not remove the brain power to utilize this type of spell. Only passive spells can be used with foci and conform to the rules of foci. You can't "lock" a levitate spell.

QUOTE
A broken rule or not. It is STILL a RULE. Rules are followed, and discussed on the boards. Just because it is broken, doesn't follow common sense, or anything else, doesn't change the fact it is a rule, and canon, and not following it is breaking the rules. By the rules, you are WRONG. That is what I am saying.


Actually strictly speaking, I am not wrong. On page 38 it says I can impose penalties. I have stated pages ago I am willing to consider allowing levitate with foci. It is a house rule to disallow them as I want. It is within the rules to impose a +2 TN modifier as I am logically arguing using canon.

QUOTE
Canonly, you can levitate an object with the spell levitate. It has some restrictions


Yes. The target must remain in view at all times.

QUOTE
Canonly, you can use a sustaining focus to sustain the spell at no penalty to the caster.


This is only true if you accept that non passive spells can bend the rules of foci and fit in them. But nowhere does it say you lose the TN penalty for manipulating the spell just because it is powered by a foci.

QUOTE
Canonly, you can levitate an object using a sustaining focus and the levitate spell without any penalty. As long as the target remains within LOS of the caster.


I don't see that. Nor has anyone pointed it out or given a quote to support it with canon. All I have seen so far is conjecture.

QUOTE
As long as it is in your LOS, you don't need to look directly at it. You can see a lot of things and only be focusing on one. Its possible.


I agree. But you can't blink your eyes and it must remain at least in peripheral vision. Any task you are doing with just peripheral vision only is harder, so if you try to do anything but levitate a single object you will suffer penalties.

QUOTE
Not if the caster could see, but can see, meaning light from the target is currently entering the casters eyes, or the caster is astrally seeing the target.


You can't target using astral perception only onto the physical can you? This is a question. Or this would be a way to target invisible objects.

Fortune
QUOTE (Rory Blackhand)
Huh? It does not say SOME of the concentration is eliminated. It says a foci will maintain the spell WITHOUT CONCENTRATION OR ATTENTION. Obviously a levitate needs attention for it to work. Nor do I interpret "locked" to mean you can change spell effects after a spell is sustained by a focus. It is simply not compatable for use with a foci.


It says 'MAINTAIN the spell without concentration or attention for it to work." It says nothing about concentrtion being necessary or not to utilize the effects of the spell.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012