Full Version: sustain focus, can it sustain any spell?
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
Cool beans. So if you can manipulate the spell to levitate an object at a certain speed, at a certain elevation, without concentration then it will fit in the focus. If you can't, then it is not compatible.
Since the spell says "Levitate allows THE CASTER to telekinetically lift an object and move it around." This means it is the caster doing the concentrating, not the foci.
Lifting is an action. It doesn't matter if it is with your mind or physical. You can't perform an action without concentrating on it. The foci is not intuitive enough to predict where you want the object to go. Nor is it's function to do so.
| QUOTE (Rory Blackhand) |
| [Since the spell says "Levitate allows THE CASTER to telekinetically lift an object and move it around." This means it is the caster doing the concentrating, not the foci. Lifting is an action. It doesn't matter if it is with your mind or physical. You can't perform an action without concentrating on it. The foci is not intuitive enough to predict where you want the object to go. Nor is it's function to do so. |
Um... no. It means the caster is doing the controlling. Don't you even read the book before posting? The sustaining focus makes it so the caster doesn't need to concentrate... says it right there in the sustaining foci rules. It also says, quite clearly in what you just quoted, that the caster can move things about. So, by canon, the caster has control, and the sustaining focus covers the concentration. All this is right there in your book, plain as day. I recommend you read it some time.
As to an action... I can perform many actions without concentrating. Walking, for example. Can you walk without concentrating on walking? I find breathing doesn't take too much concentration, nor does typing for that matter (I have to concentrate on what I'm typing, but not the typing itself).
Now, if you need to concentrate on walking and breathing and all that, I can understand your confusion. The rest of us, however, can do those things quite easily without having to use much in the way of concentration.
JaronK
Wow. Impressive thread.
I think it seems to have taken a turn for the better. Rory actually managed to make some good points. It seemed hopeless at first. But heck, at this point he´s made the most sense of anybody so far. This when discussing the actuall issue, mind you.
Rory you´re one touchy (and mean) bastard. The way you came back at some of the other posters was chilling. Kind of made me want to lash out at you too. I guess you could look at that as a compliment, concidering you managed to be meaner than a whole bunch of opponents.
Good to see that the discussion found home again. I will take a lot of what´s been said into account when dealing with sustaining foci in the future.
I think it seems to have taken a turn for the better. Rory actually managed to make some good points. It seemed hopeless at first. But heck, at this point he´s made the most sense of anybody so far. This when discussing the actuall issue, mind you.
Rory you´re one touchy (and mean) bastard. The way you came back at some of the other posters was chilling. Kind of made me want to lash out at you too. I guess you could look at that as a compliment, concidering you managed to be meaner than a whole bunch of opponents.
Good to see that the discussion found home again. I will take a lot of what´s been said into account when dealing with sustaining foci in the future.
Okay, I just don't have time to respond in detail to all of this, so I'll just answer a couple of the arguments outlined above.
First, the vacum cleaner analogy. I kinda like this analogy, as it seems appropriate to liken sustaining a spell to powering the vacum cleaner, and changing the effects of the spell to pushing the vacum cleaner around. In fact, it's almost a perfect analogy in my mind, because it fits the image I have of how spells work. Unfortunately it doesn't support your argument much at all, because the analogy actually creates the clear and necessary difference between sustaining the spell (powering the vacum cleaner) and using the effects of the spell (moving the vacum cleaner around).
Let's see if I can make my thoughts more clear. There are two things that have to be done to make a vacum cleaner work. First, you have to turn the thing on, and have power for it to draw on for it to suck things up. You can either plug it into the wall, same as everything else in your house, and draw off of your house current, or you can plug it into a seperate generator. This I see as analogous to how sustaining a spell works: you sustain it off of your own power source, which draws a little of your energy to sustain it (thus the +2 TN mod), or you can use a seperate sustaining focus to do it for you (no TN mods).
Now, this is completely seperate from actually *using* the vacum cleaner, which is the second step. Notice that this step is entirely dependent on the appliance being used; *everything* draws on some sort of power source, but only some appliances need to be controlled to be useful. Others, like a light bulb, really don't; they just work, essentially unchanging, as long as they have power. Note, though, that even if an appliance is not constantly being controlled that does not mean it turns itself off or anything; just because you're sucking empty air doesn't mean that the vacum is turned off, just that it's idling. In fact, you can even choose *how* a device idles; the vacum cleaner can be lying on its side, sitting in one spot, or using some sort of auto-function to keep going in one direction (note that this does not require intelligence on the part of the vacum cleaner, just a model with that capability). This, again, is directly analogous to controlling the effects of spells. Some can be controlled, like Levitate, and some don't need to be, like Armor. Either way, though, spells don't "turn off" even if you're not directly paying attention to the effects. So long as they continue to be powered (sustained), they'll run essentially forever, in whatever idle mode available to it.
All of this, I surmise, we already agree on; the only real point of contention is how difficult that last step is, and how the difficulty is represented in terms of mechanical effects. I contend that it's not that difficult, mostly because the book text seems to dismiss it as a trivial task, much like moving a finger is a trivial task and not mentioned anywhere. This is not to say, however, that some things you do *with* a single finger are not themselves difficult, only that moving the finger itself is not in itself very hard. You seem to think it should be difficult, regardless of what the book says or does not say, because you have come to the conclusion that using the effects of a levitate spell should be an alien thought process, one which you need a massive amount of concentration to properly employ. This, however, is not supported at all by canon; rather it is the opposite. The mage has already spent Karma and (potentially) lots of time studying his Levitate spell, to the point where it is just another skill (or perhaps subset of a skill, Sorcery). I see no reason why it shouldn't be as natural to him as moving your finger is to you.
As for the ranged combat modifiers, I still maintain that the source of that modifier is due to having to compensate for 1) the relative movement of the target with respect to your center of mass, and 2) the relative movement of your gun-hand with respect to your center of mass. Sure, you can try to compensate as much as you like--and anyone would--but the movement is still there, and it makes the shot more difficult as a result. The attacker movement penalty, IMO, has nothing to do with the difficulty of controlling both your hands and feet at the same time; this is borne out by the fact that there are no corresponding modifiers for attacker movement in melee combat or, indeed, in most other tests like Perception. You'd think if concentrating on your feet was providing a significant distraction to shooting a gun, it would also provide a significant distraction to punching someone or observing someone in detail, right?
Wow, this turned out much longer than I intended. And now I'm late for work.
First, the vacum cleaner analogy. I kinda like this analogy, as it seems appropriate to liken sustaining a spell to powering the vacum cleaner, and changing the effects of the spell to pushing the vacum cleaner around. In fact, it's almost a perfect analogy in my mind, because it fits the image I have of how spells work. Unfortunately it doesn't support your argument much at all, because the analogy actually creates the clear and necessary difference between sustaining the spell (powering the vacum cleaner) and using the effects of the spell (moving the vacum cleaner around).
Let's see if I can make my thoughts more clear. There are two things that have to be done to make a vacum cleaner work. First, you have to turn the thing on, and have power for it to draw on for it to suck things up. You can either plug it into the wall, same as everything else in your house, and draw off of your house current, or you can plug it into a seperate generator. This I see as analogous to how sustaining a spell works: you sustain it off of your own power source, which draws a little of your energy to sustain it (thus the +2 TN mod), or you can use a seperate sustaining focus to do it for you (no TN mods).
Now, this is completely seperate from actually *using* the vacum cleaner, which is the second step. Notice that this step is entirely dependent on the appliance being used; *everything* draws on some sort of power source, but only some appliances need to be controlled to be useful. Others, like a light bulb, really don't; they just work, essentially unchanging, as long as they have power. Note, though, that even if an appliance is not constantly being controlled that does not mean it turns itself off or anything; just because you're sucking empty air doesn't mean that the vacum is turned off, just that it's idling. In fact, you can even choose *how* a device idles; the vacum cleaner can be lying on its side, sitting in one spot, or using some sort of auto-function to keep going in one direction (note that this does not require intelligence on the part of the vacum cleaner, just a model with that capability). This, again, is directly analogous to controlling the effects of spells. Some can be controlled, like Levitate, and some don't need to be, like Armor. Either way, though, spells don't "turn off" even if you're not directly paying attention to the effects. So long as they continue to be powered (sustained), they'll run essentially forever, in whatever idle mode available to it.
All of this, I surmise, we already agree on; the only real point of contention is how difficult that last step is, and how the difficulty is represented in terms of mechanical effects. I contend that it's not that difficult, mostly because the book text seems to dismiss it as a trivial task, much like moving a finger is a trivial task and not mentioned anywhere. This is not to say, however, that some things you do *with* a single finger are not themselves difficult, only that moving the finger itself is not in itself very hard. You seem to think it should be difficult, regardless of what the book says or does not say, because you have come to the conclusion that using the effects of a levitate spell should be an alien thought process, one which you need a massive amount of concentration to properly employ. This, however, is not supported at all by canon; rather it is the opposite. The mage has already spent Karma and (potentially) lots of time studying his Levitate spell, to the point where it is just another skill (or perhaps subset of a skill, Sorcery). I see no reason why it shouldn't be as natural to him as moving your finger is to you.
As for the ranged combat modifiers, I still maintain that the source of that modifier is due to having to compensate for 1) the relative movement of the target with respect to your center of mass, and 2) the relative movement of your gun-hand with respect to your center of mass. Sure, you can try to compensate as much as you like--and anyone would--but the movement is still there, and it makes the shot more difficult as a result. The attacker movement penalty, IMO, has nothing to do with the difficulty of controlling both your hands and feet at the same time; this is borne out by the fact that there are no corresponding modifiers for attacker movement in melee combat or, indeed, in most other tests like Perception. You'd think if concentrating on your feet was providing a significant distraction to shooting a gun, it would also provide a significant distraction to punching someone or observing someone in detail, right?
Wow, this turned out much longer than I intended. And now I'm late for work.
Canon magic doesn't need to make sense. All it has are rules that you follow. Some spells broken? Perhaps. Change them? Not canon, unless you are the developer/author.
Point 1: The stuff referring to LOS and levitate:
Not a straw man argument -- actually, not even an argument. I'm not attacking anything, I'm actually pointing out the various reasons why the rule could be considered broken. I don't particularly care either way.
The reason I say it's a non-issue. Because it is. Any spell can be sustained close to indefinately, but you can't move the target without line of sight by canon. Just because you can't manipulate it at some point doesn't mean the spell isn't being sustained, it just means you can't manipulate it for a minute. The spell affect and the useability thereof are different. Understand that.
Point 2: My point 2, about page 38
You missed the point -- although I should have been more clear. What I said was that it happens a measurable amount of the time. What you should have realized is that it also DOESN'T happen a measureable amount of the time. So things that affect a task DON'T always apply TN modifiers.
Point 3: sustaining foci description
If you can't grasp the grammar.... Go back to school and take some basic english classes. Do not take a fragment of a sentence and apply it to the universal. Just don't. It's a grammatical mistake. What the sentence says is that it MAINTAINS THE SPELL WITHOUT CONCENTRATION OR ATTENTION. It does NOT say that it removes all concentration and attention. It doesn't say that it can't be concentrated on. It ONLY says that it removes it as far as maintaining the spell. Any other interpretation is wrong according to the rules of grammar for the english language. If you're speaking some other language, then find yourself someone to translate.
Point 4: Blindfighting, walking backwards, etc..
The walking backwards, blindfighting, etc.. You missed the point again. I'm indicating that there are tasks you can do without looking. The line above, 'blindfighting applies'.. as in, you can fight the troll without looking, thus maintain LOS with what you're doing.
Point 5: Miscellanious +2 manipulation via levitate modifier..
My gods I don't even want to touch how far you missed the point by with this one... I ask you about applying a +2 modifier to using levitate as well as sustaining it, and you don't even touch it. Would you apply a +2 modifier to using levitate even if you haven't started moving something yet? Why are you going into canon? The question doesn't touch canon, it's about your own particular house rule.
Point 6: Movement modifiers
Um.. I can argue that two ways. Why not? Walking is required to repair a car. You have to move from spot to spot, get tools, change where you're looking. If you're walking separate to repairing the car then you simply aren't allowed to repair the car.
Point 7: How does line of sight relate to concentration?
Point 8: SR2 is not SR3.
Not a straw man argument -- actually, not even an argument. I'm not attacking anything, I'm actually pointing out the various reasons why the rule could be considered broken. I don't particularly care either way.
The reason I say it's a non-issue. Because it is. Any spell can be sustained close to indefinately, but you can't move the target without line of sight by canon. Just because you can't manipulate it at some point doesn't mean the spell isn't being sustained, it just means you can't manipulate it for a minute. The spell affect and the useability thereof are different. Understand that.
Point 2: My point 2, about page 38
You missed the point -- although I should have been more clear. What I said was that it happens a measurable amount of the time. What you should have realized is that it also DOESN'T happen a measureable amount of the time. So things that affect a task DON'T always apply TN modifiers.
Point 3: sustaining foci description
If you can't grasp the grammar.... Go back to school and take some basic english classes. Do not take a fragment of a sentence and apply it to the universal. Just don't. It's a grammatical mistake. What the sentence says is that it MAINTAINS THE SPELL WITHOUT CONCENTRATION OR ATTENTION. It does NOT say that it removes all concentration and attention. It doesn't say that it can't be concentrated on. It ONLY says that it removes it as far as maintaining the spell. Any other interpretation is wrong according to the rules of grammar for the english language. If you're speaking some other language, then find yourself someone to translate.
Point 4: Blindfighting, walking backwards, etc..
The walking backwards, blindfighting, etc.. You missed the point again. I'm indicating that there are tasks you can do without looking. The line above, 'blindfighting applies'.. as in, you can fight the troll without looking, thus maintain LOS with what you're doing.
Point 5: Miscellanious +2 manipulation via levitate modifier..
My gods I don't even want to touch how far you missed the point by with this one... I ask you about applying a +2 modifier to using levitate as well as sustaining it, and you don't even touch it. Would you apply a +2 modifier to using levitate even if you haven't started moving something yet? Why are you going into canon? The question doesn't touch canon, it's about your own particular house rule.
Point 6: Movement modifiers
Um.. I can argue that two ways. Why not? Walking is required to repair a car. You have to move from spot to spot, get tools, change where you're looking. If you're walking separate to repairing the car then you simply aren't allowed to repair the car.
Point 7: How does line of sight relate to concentration?
Point 8: SR2 is not SR3.
| QUOTE (Rory Blackhand) |
| Since the spell says "Levitate allows THE CASTER to telekinetically lift an object and move it around." This means it is the caster doing the concentrating, not the foci. |
Ok. You say that the foci locks the spells effects, and that is why you can't move people with levitate through a foci.
Levitates effects, as you say here, is it grants the caster the ability to move things with his mind. That is the effect.
The actual moving of things with his mind is not part of the affect, its the same as reducing the power of an attack from an armor spell. You don't get a +2 when the armor spell effects are being utilized do you? No. Why should you get a +2 when the levitate effects are? The effect is the caster moves the target with his mind. That never changes, thus its a passive spell as how you said. Either the caster can or can't move it with his mind. Thats it. Thats all the foci maintains.
The caster himself then can decide how the object moves, without any changes to the spells effects. That is complete seperate of the spells effects. I agree there should be a TN for moving multiple people at once, similar to a juggling skill check to juggle multiple balls. But not if its simple movement, like straight lines. Anything more complex than that, and I'd start requireing checks. Including moving people in different straight lines (meaning 2 people move left, while 2 move right).
Other than that, there is no penalty for using the spell.
| QUOTE |
| Um... no. It means the caster is doing the controlling. Don't you even read the book before posting? The sustaining focus makes it so the caster doesn't need to concentrate... says it right there in the sustaining foci rules. It also says, quite clearly in what you just quoted, that the caster can move things about. So, by canon, the caster has control, and the sustaining focus covers the concentration. All this is right there in your book, plain as day. I recommend you read it some time. |
You suggest I read the book. I suggest you use some independent thought for once and quit acting so sheeeepish. The book is wrong. My guess, unintentionally. The rules are broken though, which is the whole point of being here isn't it?
I don't need you to point out that the book says the focus will remove the need to concentrate on the spell. What I do need is for you to explain how it is possible to "lock" a levitate spell in the first place, which means no changes allowed after bonding. And I also need you to explain how you can levitate an object from point A to point B without giving it any thought? The spell says you have to maintain line of sight, or constant view to use it. This alone tells us that there is no way to drop concentration on the spell and effectively manipulate the effects. By your definition the caster does not even have to be conscious to levitate something. Certainly when your mind is completely empty and you are in a deep meditative trance you are not concentrating on the spell? Even though your eyes are open and the target could still be in line of sight. By your definition a sleeping mage should be able to levitate something along a complex and varied path determined by outside forces. When you are asleep an armor spell still works, so it must be the same with a levitate spell...by your definition, huh?
Once again, the spell allows the caster to "telekineticlly lift". Lift being the key action verb involved. If the spell requires no concentration as you are suggesting then you would not have to use any of your attention at all, ie...by your definition a levitated object would automatically move to where the PC wants it to go. According to you the PC doesn't even need to think about where it needs to go, because thinking would require some amount of concentration and by your definition concentration is not neccessary? There is no way around this. Levitate can't satisfy the no concentration requirement so is not compatible with foci. It is plain as day.
Master tells student to choose an appropriate spell to bond into a sustaining foci. Student chooses levitate. Master shakes his head in amusement and watches as student casts, sustains, then bonds a levitate to a foci, "locking" it in place. Master now tells student to place the foci on a pig. Student places foci on a pig. Master orders student to make the pig fly. Student is unable to make the pig fly. Why? The spell was "locked" to the foci. No further concentration is allowed on the spell. Without directions, it is impossible to lift an item, because the foci is not designed to tell the subject where to levitate to. This requires concentration and change, making a levitate unusable with a foci. The student tries it again with an armor spell placing the lock on himself. Master tells the student to sleep and rest. When student falls asleep the master shoots the student with a pistol. The bullets do not touch the student. Why? The bullet barrier requires no concentration to use the effects. It works fine and fits with "ALL" the rules with the foci.
Much you have to learn my young Padwan.
| QUOTE |
| As to an action... I can perform many actions without concentrating. Walking, for example. Can you walk without concentrating on walking? I find breathing doesn't take too much concentration, nor does typing for that matter (I have to concentrate on what I'm typing, but not the typing itself). |
Um...no you can't. Everything you do requires some amount of concentration. Just plotting a course and glancing down now and then to reference where your body is in relationship to where you desire to be is using concentration, otherwise you could sleep while you travel around if you need "no" concentration. Don't even mention sleep walking either. You are not controlling where you go while sleep walking. In short, you can't perform any action without some sort of concentration. And if you can't get rid of the need to concentrate a levitate can't be used with a foci.
| QUOTE |
| I think it seems to have taken a turn for the better. Rory actually managed to make some good points. It seemed hopeless at first. But heck, at this point he´s made the most sense of anybody so far. This when discussing the actuall issue, mind you. |
Thank you. I can be just as polite as anyone and you don't need to know every word of a rule to know when it is broken.
| QUOTE |
| Rory you´re one touchy (and mean) bastard. The way you came back at some of the other posters was chilling. Kind of made me want to lash out at you too. I guess you could look at that as a compliment, concidering you managed to be meaner than a whole bunch of opponents. |
Wow, I haven't even tried to be that mean, sorry. I can get down right nasty when I want to. I spent a number of years with some really vicious people. This is nothing. I am much worse in person.
| QUOTE |
| First, the vacum cleaner analogy. I kinda like this analogy, as it seems appropriate to liken sustaining a spell to powering the vacum cleaner, and changing the effects of the spell to pushing the vacum cleaner around. In fact, it's almost a perfect analogy in my mind, because it fits the image I have of how spells work. |
This would equate to a levitate spell.
| QUOTE |
| *everything* draws on some sort of power source, but only some appliances need to be controlled to be useful. Others, like a light bulb, really don't; they just work, essentially unchanging, as long as they have power. |
This would equate to an armor spell.
| QUOTE |
| So long as they continue to be powered (sustained), they'll run essentially forever, in whatever idle mode available to it. |
A light bulb/armor burns and puts out light requiring no attention at all. A vacuum cleaner/levitate needs to be guided around. The act of guiding it around takes concentration, which is directly at odds with the purpose of a sustaining foci. You can turn a light on, sit down an watch tv, even fall asleep on the couch. You can't turn a vacuum on, sit down and watch tv and expect it to do anything on it's own. If you want it to clean the carpet you have to get up and push it. Even if it has been "locked" in place and is self powered it will only go until it hits a wall then do as I said sit there sucking empty air. Either way you look at it the spell does not work without concentration.
| QUOTE |
| All of this, I surmise, we already agree on; the only real point of contention is how difficult that last step is, and how the difficulty is represented in terms of mechanical effects. I contend that it's not that difficult, mostly because the book text seems to dismiss it as a trivial task, much like moving a finger is a trivial task and not mentioned anywhere. |
You can twitch your fingers without looking at them. According to the spell constant line of sight is required. This additional requirement alone is more than moving your fingers around idlely. Having any amount of concentration is counter to sustaining foci. You can't lock a levitate effect. The spell is not compatible with a foci. Any spell you can name that requires no further guidance is fine.
| QUOTE |
| The mage has already spent Karma and (potentially) lots of time studying his Levitate spell, to the point where it is just another skill (or perhaps subset of a skill, Sorcery). I see no reason why it shouldn't be as natural to him as moving your finger is to you. |
That was easily dispelled as false, but let's explore the idea of it being a skill. Using a skill in itself takes concentration. If you agree the spell requires "any" concentration at all it defeats the purpose of the foci.
| QUOTE |
| The attacker movement penalty, IMO, has nothing to do with the difficulty of controlling both your hands and feet at the same time; this is borne out by the fact that there are no corresponding modifiers for attacker movement in melee combat or, indeed, in most other tests like Perception. You'd think if concentrating on your feet was providing a significant distraction to shooting a gun, it would also provide a significant distraction to punching someone or observing someone in detail, right? |
Which is covered on page 38. It makes no sense that you can see as much while sprinting by a full speed as you can by standing still. Ever hear the saying stop and smell the roses? A perception test in my game made while moving will get you a TN penalty. If you want to hold perfectly still and be quiet for a round I will let you roll with no penalties. The melee rules are broken and I do not wish to open that can of worms again. Notice many many posters ask for melee rules to be fixed in their top 5 suggestions for new rules. Likewise if you think are able to repair a 50 cal machine gun while at a dead run with no penalties because there is none listed I see no reason to continue in this fantasy discussion.
| QUOTE |
| Wow, this turned out much longer than I intended. And now I'm late for work. |
I do this all the time. And let my food go cold. And ignore my wife and my kids. Etc..
| QUOTE |
| Canon magic doesn't need to make sense. All it has are rules that you follow. |
To a certain point, yes. But actually no, I disagree. We want the game world to make sense as much as possible. It is part of the allure of the game. At least for me it is.
| QUOTE |
| The reason I say it's a non-issue. Because it is. Any spell can be sustained close to indefinately, but you can't move the target without line of sight by canon. Just because you can't manipulate it at some point doesn't mean the spell isn't being sustained, it just means you can't manipulate it for a minute. The spell affect and the useability thereof are different. |
We both agree this is true. But only as a compromise. I would house rule you can't sustain a levitate in a foci, because it requires further changes. Negating two principles of the foci. One, it requires no concentration, two it needs to be locked disallowing any further changes.
| QUOTE |
| I ask you about applying a +2 modifier to using levitate as well as sustaining it, and you don't even touch it. |
I have already said I would argue for a TN penalty, just like a magic fingers spell gets.
| QUOTE |
| Would you apply a +2 modifier to using levitate even if you haven't started moving something yet? Why are you going into canon? The question doesn't touch canon, it's about your own particular house rule. |
I'm not house ruling. Canon says it is +2 whether you move something or not. My point is that levitate is not a passive spell and can't be sustained by a foci, or can't be locked unless you accept that the spell effect that was locked is all the spell would od, ie rise 1 meter per turn, end, stop, no adjusting or input, it is "locked". I tried to compromise with the whole +2 TN deal. It is my reading that the spell perverts the whole concept of sustaining foci and should be disallowed.
| QUOTE |
| The effect is the caster moves the target with his mind. That never changes, thus its a passive spell as how you said. Either the caster can or can't move it with his mind. Thats it. Thats all the foci maintains. |
I think having the ability to do something is different from using the ability.
| QUOTE |
| Um.. I can argue that two ways. Why not? Walking is required to repair a car. You have to move from spot to spot, get tools, change where you're looking. |
Can you fix a car that is rolling down a bumpy hill if you only need two tools to remove the part that is bad? One for each hand? Without distraction penalties? If you can do that trick I know where you can get hired for big bucks.
| QUOTE |
| Ok. You say that the foci locks the spells effects, and that is why you can't move people with levitate through a foci. Levitates effects, as you say here, is it grants the caster the ability to move things with his mind. That is the effect. The actual moving of things with his mind is not part of the affect |
Yes it is. The spell allows the caster to "lift" which is a verb, meaning the caster is taking an action using the spell. This is moving an object and is the exact effect of the spell.
| QUOTE |
| Why should you get a +2 when the levitate effects are? The effect is the caster moves the target with his mind |
Moving is a verb. That means you are doing something. If you are doing something that requires you never to take your eyes off the object you are moving then it is a distraction to do simultaneously with something else that requires concentration.
| QUOTE |
| Either the caster can or can't move it with his mind. Thats it. Thats all the foci maintains. |
Having the ability to do something is not the same as actually doing it. The TN penalty would come as a result of the distraction.
| QUOTE |
| The caster himself then can decide how the object moves, without any changes to the spells effects. |
Not true, not if the spell was locked. As in levitate up at 6 meters per turn. Not to mention that this is taking concentration to make decisions.
| QUOTE |
| But not if its simple movement, like straight lines. Anything more complex than that, and I'd start requireing checks. |
If all you are doing is moving one object and that is it, I see no reason to apply a TN to move it around to the full ability of the spell. My point is if you try and do something else or add a second object to levitate as well.
| QUOTE (Rory Blackhand) |
| You suggest I read the book. I suggest you use some independent thought for once and quit acting so sheeeepish. The book is wrong. My guess, unintentionally. The rules are broken though, which is the whole point of being here isn't it? I don't need you to point out that the book says the focus will remove the need to concentrate on the spell. What I do need is for you to explain how it is possible to "lock" a levitate spell in the first place, which means no changes allowed after bonding. And I also need you to explain how you can levitate an object from point A to point B without giving it any thought? |
And therein lies your problem. You're not using the book. You're just using house rules that you think make sense. You're not using Shadowrun, you're playing Rory's almost Shadowrun-like thing. You know what? That's fine, but don't argue about it here unless you post ahead of time "this is my houserule."
As for "And I also need you to explain how you can levitate an object from point A to point B without giving it any thought? " I never said anything about no thought being needed. There's simply no concentration needed. Can you walk without thinking? No. Can you walk without concentrating? I, for one, can. I just think about where I want to go, and my Cerebellum handles the rest... I don't have to actively concentrate on where I'm going except when I need to make alterations (like stop for a light, change my direction, etc). Perhaps you cannot do this. If so, you might want to see a doctor... your Cerebellum seems woefully underdevolped.
But the rest of us can walk and chew bubble gum all at the same time, and it doesn't take us any amount of concentration, just the occasional thought (like "I should stop chewing now, this gum is getting old").
JaronK
| QUOTE (Rory Blackhand Posted on Mar 21 2005 @ 06:48 PM) |
I don't need you to point out that the book says the focus will remove the need to concentrate on the spell. What I do need is for you to explain how it is possible to "lock" a levitate spell in the first place, which means no changes allowed after bonding. |
Correct. The telekinetic abilities of the caster of the spell do not change. He/she can move things with a mere thought. When you lock this spell, those telekinetic abilities are locked in place. You CAN functionally use a sustaining focus with levitate because the spell and the power it gives do not change.
| QUOTE |
| And I also need you to explain how you can levitate an object from point A to point B without giving it any thought? |
The same way I can walk and chew bubblegum. No significant thought. Nothing taxing. A +2 is severe: like being 30% dead. Think of the penalty for using levitate as a +¼ rounded down to 0.
| QUOTE |
| Master tells student to choose an appropriate spell to bond into a sustaining foci. Student chooses levitate. Master shakes his head in amusement and watches as student casts, sustains, then bonds a levitate to a foci, "locking" it in place. Master now tells student to place the foci on a pig. Student places foci on a pig. Master orders student to make the pig fly. Student is unable to make the pig fly. Why? The spell was "locked" to the foci. No further concentration is allowed on the spell. Without directions, it is impossible to lift an item, because the foci is not designed to tell the subject where to levitate to. This requires concentration and change, making a levitate unusable with a foci. |
I think this is your only misunderstanding. This one little misunderstanding is what is creating this whole messy topic. The spell does not move the pig. The spell gives the caster the ability to move the pig. It's in the spell description. It doesn't say the spell moves an object, it says it allows the caster to move the object without touching it. With a mere thought. That's what telekinetic ability is.
| QUOTE | ||
Um...no you can't. Everything you do requires some amount of concentration. Just plotting a course and glancing down now and then to reference where your body is in relationship to where you desire to be is using concentration, otherwise you could sleep while you travel around if you need "no" concentration. Don't even mention sleep walking either. You are not controlling where you go while sleep walking. In short, you can't perform any action without some sort of concentration. And if you can't get rid of the need to concentrate a levitate can't be used with a foci. |
I find it easier to talk with someone while walking, especially down a path. It has been proven in studies (if you really want, I can try to hunt down links) that some people can remember names and such better while moving their hands. For some reason, moving their hands triggers their memory. With this I am just trying to explain how telekinetic powers (given by a spell that doesn't move the object by itself) could be trivial to use. Some things are just that easy to do. Once again, think of it as +1/4 rounded down, not like +2 which is the same penalty for 30% dead! Would you penalize someone for holding a phone? Give them +2 just to talk to the person on the other end? I'm not talking about +2 to other tasks, I mean +2 just for holding the phone. How about another +2 for breathing while talking. Some people doodle. Sometimes you have to jot down notes. Another +2. Lets see, thats +6 to the language test. Even an EXPERT will get only one success in a BASIC CONVERSATION on average. No! You don't have to add +2 or even +1 for every trivial thing you do. The spell's description makes it easy to direct something with a thought when you've been given this power. If you wanted to be a bastard GM™ you could give penalties up the wazoo, but that is the GM's call. I will quit discussing the total +4 to use levitate (without a sustaining focus).
| QUOTE |
| Having any amount of concentration is counter to sustaining foci. |
Are you saying that when a magician is using a sustaining focus, he or she can't focus on ANYTHING?! A magician wouldn't have to concentrate on the spell to use levitate if he or she had a sustaining focus. He or she may have to use a quick thought to use the powers given by the spell, but those powers nor the spell change at all. The spell doesn't move the item. The caster moves the item with his or her telekinetic power.
| QUOTE |
| You can't lock a levitate effect. The spell is not compatible with a foci. Any spell you can name that requires no further guidance is fine. |
One doesn't need to guide the levitate spell at all once it is cast. The telekinetic powers it gives to the caster do not change. They are locked! I name Levitate as needing no further guidance!
*sigh* The big problem with almost all of what you're arguing here Rory is most of it is just you repeating several of your claims over and over. Repetition does not make a weak argument stronger, except in the minds of those not paying much attention. Most of your claims remain with no real backing other than making other claims, either that the canon rules are broken and should be thrown out in favor of your house rules, or that canon is too vague to really rule one way or the other, switching between the two whenever your opponent attacks the other claim as irrelevant. The problem is that *neither* claim is valid, as the purpose of this thread isn't to discuss your house rules or *any* house rules, but rather the ones that already exist in canon. If you want to discuss your house rules in another thread that's fine, but don't try to pretend that they have any canon backing whatsoever.
| QUOTE (Rory Blackhand) |
| A light bulb/armor burns and puts out light requiring no attention at all. A vacuum cleaner/levitate needs to be guided around. The act of guiding it around takes concentration, which is directly at odds with the purpose of a sustaining foci. You can turn a light on, sit down an watch tv, even fall asleep on the couch. You can't turn a vacuum on, sit down and watch tv and expect it to do anything on it's own. If you want it to clean the carpet you have to get up and push it. Even if it has been "locked" in place and is self powered it will only go until it hits a wall then do as I said sit there sucking empty air. Either way you look at it the spell does not work without concentration. |
You seem to have missed the crux of my argument. The whole point was that there is a necessary distinction--a clear difference--even in the analogy you gave, between sustaining the spell, which is likened to the power source that the vacum cleaner or light bulb is drawing from, and manipulating or "controlling" the spell's effects, which is likened to actually pushing the vacum cleaner around. Now, here's the important part: no matter whether the power is coming directly from the house (mage sustaining the spell) or from a seperate generator (sustaining focus powering the spell), you can still manipulate the vacum cleaner in effectively the same ways to do effectively the same things. This is what I meant by a "clear and necessary distinction," which I presume you glossed over because of vocabulary differences or not really paying attention to my argument.
Thus, by your own analogy you have shown that it is conceptually simple to seperate the powering of a spell from the manipulation of its effects.
| QUOTE |
| You can twitch your fingers without looking at them. According to the spell constant line of sight is required. This additional requirement alone is more than moving your fingers around idlely. |
Okay, fine. However, there is an additional requirement for twitching your finger that it must remain attached to your body, which is a requirement that the Levitate spell does not have. Therefore twitching your finger must require more concentration than manipulating a Levitate spell. My argument here is clearly absurd, but it follows the exact same line of reasoning as yours does, which makes both arguments absurd. I cut the rest of the paragraph from the quote because the claims you offer up as conclusions do not in any way follow from your argument.
| QUOTE |
| A perception test in my game made while moving will get you a TN penalty. If you want to hold perfectly still and be quiet for a round I will let you roll with no penalties. The melee rules are broken and I do not wish to open that can of worms again. Notice many many posters ask for melee rules to be fixed in their top 5 suggestions for new rules. Likewise if you think are able to repair a 50 cal machine gun while at a dead run with no penalties because there is none listed I see no reason to continue in this fantasy discussion. |
Okay, so we have 1) an irrelevant house rule, 2) another claim that the canon rules are broken, and 3) an irrelevant point which I didn't make anywhere in my argument. 3) is false as well: take a look on pg. 95 at the Build/Repair table. I don't know about you, but I'd definately call doing B/R at a dead run "Terrible Conditions" which would immediately give a +4 TN mod. Hell, I might be tempted to extrapolate from the table and call it "Piece of Shit Conditions" and make it a +6 TN mod, but that would be a house rule and not really part of this discussion.
Gee this is fun. Who's going to pick up the torch next? 
| QUOTE |
| Gee this is fun. Who's going to pick up the torch next? |
Not me. I am bored to tears with this topic. I think I have made myself understood by those open minded enough to understand what I am saying makes perfect sense. The whole point of the thread is; can any spell be sustained by a focus? The answer is no. Only passive spells can. If it isn't clear in the rules enough for that to be accepted then it needs to be made so. Since I don't have a clue how to go about getting that change, it is pointless for me to go over the same good points over and over. I GM games that make sense, there will be no munchkins allowed.
| QUOTE (Rory Blackhand) | ||
Not me. I am bored to tears with this topic. I think I have made myself understood by those open minded enough to understand what I am saying makes perfect sense. The whole point of the thread is; can any spell be sustained by a focus? The answer is no. Only passive spells can. If it isn't clear in the rules enough for that to be accepted then it needs to be made so. Since I don't have a clue how to go about getting that change, it is pointless for me to go over the same good points over and over. I GM games that make sense, there will be no munchkins allowed. |
The flaw with this arguement is that levitate is a passive spell.
Armor we agree is passive. It is either providing you magical armor, or not.
Levitate is either providing you with the ability to move something with your mind, or not.
Actually using the armor (by being shot and reducing the damage) or using the levitation (making stuff float around) is also analogous. Neither forces a penalty.
Well, there are players like tisoz and BitBasher that I have high respect for. Both have been around a long time and they both agree with my interpretation, or I agree with theirs since they actually posted first, even though I admit I did not read their posts until long after I had posted. Obviously, they do not allow players to abuse canon with rules lawyering.
Any layman off the street can see that levitate is not a passive spell and that "lock" means you do not get to change ANY aspect of the spell once it is bonded to a foci. Like tisoz suggested and I explained further. Canon does not support anywhere the munchkin's interpretation that you remain in control of a spell once it is locked and sustained by a foci. It simply does not state that anywhere. In fact it greatly perverts the entire purpose of that foci and over powers the item beyond what the designers likely had in mind.
My biggest mistake was confusing the issue with a compramise. I suggested keeping the +2 TN for using a spell like levitate in a focus if you allow levitate at all. This is more than fair considering the suspension of belief you want me to accept in the first place to allow levitate in a spell lock.
Anyone saying they can chew bubble gum and walk has no knowledge of mind/body mechanics and consciousness. To lift an object with your mind will take much more effort than that. Keeping it view at all times means you can't even walk without chancing a fall. The focus does nothing to assist you other than powering the spell. And any other interpretation is weak. If it wasn't for the monotany of blasting one ill thought out straw man after another I would continue.
Any layman off the street can see that levitate is not a passive spell and that "lock" means you do not get to change ANY aspect of the spell once it is bonded to a foci. Like tisoz suggested and I explained further. Canon does not support anywhere the munchkin's interpretation that you remain in control of a spell once it is locked and sustained by a foci. It simply does not state that anywhere. In fact it greatly perverts the entire purpose of that foci and over powers the item beyond what the designers likely had in mind.
My biggest mistake was confusing the issue with a compramise. I suggested keeping the +2 TN for using a spell like levitate in a focus if you allow levitate at all. This is more than fair considering the suspension of belief you want me to accept in the first place to allow levitate in a spell lock.
Anyone saying they can chew bubble gum and walk has no knowledge of mind/body mechanics and consciousness. To lift an object with your mind will take much more effort than that. Keeping it view at all times means you can't even walk without chancing a fall. The focus does nothing to assist you other than powering the spell. And any other interpretation is weak. If it wasn't for the monotany of blasting one ill thought out straw man after another I would continue.
Good job avoiding my post Rory, which completely destroys yours.
Levitate is a passive spell. It grants you an ability. The same as improve strength grants you one. Higher strength/moving an object with your mind.
Strictly speaking, at best, you could say the target could never change, which is correct, nor could the caster ever change. Great. Now, the spells affects are the caster can move the target with the caster's mind. Those don't change either. Address that.
Levitate is a passive spell. It grants you an ability. The same as improve strength grants you one. Higher strength/moving an object with your mind.
Strictly speaking, at best, you could say the target could never change, which is correct, nor could the caster ever change. Great. Now, the spells affects are the caster can move the target with the caster's mind. Those don't change either. Address that.
| QUOTE (Rory Blackhand @ Mar 21 2005, 10:54 PM) |
| Well, there are players like tisoz and BitBasher that I have high respect for. Both have been around a long time and they both agree with my interpretation, or I agree with theirs since they actually posted first, even though I admit I did not read their posts until long after I had posted. Obviously, they do not allow players to abuse canon with rules lawyering. Any layman off the street can see that levitate is not a passive spell and that "lock" means you do not get to change ANY aspect of the spell once it is bonded to a foci. Like tisoz suggested and I explained further. Canon does not support anywhere the munchkin's interpretation that you remain in control of a spell once it is locked and sustained by a foci. It simply does not state that anywhere. In fact it greatly perverts the entire purpose of that foci and over powers the item beyond what the designers likely had in mind. My biggest mistake was confusing the issue with a compramise. I suggested keeping the +2 TN for using a spell like levitate in a focus if you allow levitate at all. This is more than fair considering the suspension of belief you want me to accept in the first place to allow levitate in a spell lock. Anyone saying they can chew bubble gum and walk has no knowledge of mind/body mechanics and consciousness. To lift an object with your mind will take much more effort than that. Keeping it view at all times means you can't even walk without chancing a fall. The focus does nothing to assist you other than powering the spell. And any other interpretation is weak. If it wasn't for the monotany of blasting one ill thought out straw man after another I would continue. |
You really don't understand anything you're talking about, do you?
'Locking' a door stops it from opening. You can still open and close the windows. Locking a window, you can still look out the window, change curtains, whatever. Locking is not 'prevent 100% of all change'. It just prevents the change the lock is designed against. And this is making the false assumption that something needs to be changed.
As for bubblegum and walking..
No, levitate does not take more effort than that. You think it does. That's different. You're welcome to impose your worldview on your players. I'm quite glad that I am not and never will be one of them.
Are you going to accuse everyone else of 'argumentum ad ignoramus' 'argumentum ad nazium' as well now? Those were yours too, we just ignored them. Look'em up if you don't believe me. I know Sharaloth gave a link for ad nazium earlier.
| QUOTE (Rory Blackhand) |
| Well, there are players like tisoz and BitBasher that I have high respect for. Both have been around a long time and they both agree with my interpretation, or I agree with theirs since they actually posted first, even though I admit I did not read their posts until long after I had posted. Obviously, they do not allow players to abuse canon with rules lawyering. |
That's funny. I copied and pasted that into my Translate-o-Thon, and got:
"I like these two guys, because they agree with me and make me feel like I'm not alone on this thread. I'm ignoring the rules and calling people that don't ignore them 'rules lawyers,' while implying no one that disagrees with me is a good GM I'm cool."
| QUOTE |
| Any layman off the street can see that levitate is not a passive spell and that "lock" means you do not get to change ANY aspect of the spell once it is bonded to a foci. |
First of all, unless you've been casting spells recently, you're a layman, as are the rest of us. I however see levitate as being just as passive as other spells. It grants the caster the ability to move things with a thought... just like Improve Strength grants the target the ability to move heavier things with their muscles. And as for what "lock" means, you seem to be stuck in SR2. There's no spell locks anymore, so your little lock arguement makes no sense whatsoever. No spells are "locked" in SR3. They are instead "sustained." By the book, that means they no longer require concentration... just like the walking and chewing bubble gum thing. If you'd never walked before (or needed to learn to walk again due to some serious accident), walking takes a serious amount of concentration. It's hard. There's a lot of muscles to move. You can think of that as a magician trying to sustain the spell himself. However, if you've done it a long time, your cerebellum takes over... your concious mind no longer needs to maintain the activity of walking, and instead only guides where to walk. In this case, your cerebellum is like a sustaining focus, handling all the necessary concentration. Tell me... can you control where you walk when your cerebellum handles the details? I know I can.
| QUOTE |
| My biggest mistake was confusing the issue with a compramise. I suggested keeping the +2 TN for using a spell like levitate in a focus if you allow levitate at all. |
That's not a compromise. That's a direct contradiction of what Shadowrun tells you happens. That's "Rory's funky ideas on what Shadowrun should be like, despite the fact that his ideas run exactly counter to what the books say about the subject." That's "Rory's house rule that makes a sustaining focus completely useless with levitate for no apparent reason."
| QUOTE |
| Anyone saying they can chew bubble gum and walk has no knowledge of mind/body mechanics and consciousness. To lift an object with your mind will take much more effort than that. |
Wow Rory, really? Is that what happened last time you lifted something with your mind? Tell me, what exactly are your credencials on the subject? Have you asked a telekinetic person lately? Certainly, in any fantasy book I've read, telekenetic folks seem to be able to toss things around relatively easily, as simply as walking. In a few stories, it takes a lot of work and they sweat a lot. From what shadowrun tells us, it's easy in shadowrun. So cite your source for this claim or shut up about it... as far as I can tell you have no evidence for this claim and unless you can move things with your mind and have first hand evidence, you have no back up for this claim.
| QUOTE |
| Keeping it view at all times means you can't even walk without chancing a fall. |
Wait... you can't walk and keep something in view without falling? This does explain a lot here. You might want to see a doctor about that. Me, I can walk while reading a newspaper. I can also walk and talk to someone else, looking at them much of the time. If they're in front of me, I gaurentee you I can walk safely while looking at a pretty girl and keeping her in view for quite some time, and I haven't slammed into any posts yet. Don't assume that just because you're not capable of doing much while walking, the rest of us aren't either. And remember, mages (at least the shadowrunning PC kinds) tend to have an intelligence around 6... they're pretty bright. They can manage walking and reading, most likely.
| QUOTE |
| The focus does nothing to assist you other than powering the spell. And any other interpretation is weak. |
Funny, my interpretation is that it sustains the spell, removing all need for concentration. You may call it weak... but I call it "what the fraggin' book says." Your interpretation that it only powers the spell is rather weak, seeing as there's no evidence for it.
| QUOTE |
| If it wasn't for the monotany of blasting one ill thought out straw man after another I would continue. |
And where exactly in your post did you address a strawman? Did you even read the links about what that word means? You're like a small child who's just heard a bad word and wants to use it for anything they don't like. Read the links, learn what a strawman is, then try using that word. We all used it on you because your 6 man ariel ballet without penalties has nothing to do with sustaining foci, and only has to do with what TN a GM should set to choreograph a 6 man ariel ballet, making it completely off topic. You then attacked that strawman, and claimed to have made an arguement against sustaining foci with levitate, which is the essence of a strawman arguement.
JaronK
I am sorry to come into this conversation late in the game.
The point that people keep making is that rory is not following "cannon law" and rants off the top of his head without quoting the real actual rules.
I have played Shadowrun II for a looooooonnnnngggg time and in shadowrun II when you make a spell lock it locks the spell down. That means no changes. I can post the exact "cannon law" for SRII but not SR3. I know the makers haven't completely lost their mind though.
If anyone can post where you are allowed to change spells after locking them please post here. If not Levitate can not be changed once locked no change of direction or amount.
People have posted comparing the spell to appliances etc. good analogy bad analogy who cares the spell is not a vacuum cleaner. If you want to argue a point and beat someone up for not using "cannon law" when making arguments leave your appliances home.
Basically the whole question revolves around one issue can anyone quote from the SR3 where you are allowed to change a spell once LOCKED.
Sporg
The point that people keep making is that rory is not following "cannon law" and rants off the top of his head without quoting the real actual rules.
I have played Shadowrun II for a looooooonnnnngggg time and in shadowrun II when you make a spell lock it locks the spell down. That means no changes. I can post the exact "cannon law" for SRII but not SR3. I know the makers haven't completely lost their mind though.
If anyone can post where you are allowed to change spells after locking them please post here. If not Levitate can not be changed once locked no change of direction or amount.
People have posted comparing the spell to appliances etc. good analogy bad analogy who cares the spell is not a vacuum cleaner. If you want to argue a point and beat someone up for not using "cannon law" when making arguments leave your appliances home.
Basically the whole question revolves around one issue can anyone quote from the SR3 where you are allowed to change a spell once LOCKED.
Sporg
Sporg, once again. The ability that is locked when levitate is put into a focus is the casters ability to move the target with his mind. That is what the spell does. Any actual movement the target does, is because the caster is using his mind (and thus the effect of the spell) to do so, not the spell itself. The spells only affect is to permit the caster to move the target with the caster's mind.
You might want to read pages one and two of this thread. That's where most of the actual discussion and information will be found. Including quotes to the effect that Levitate grants specific abilities to the caster (specifically, the ability to telekinetically move the object the spell is cast upon), and the sustaining focus makes it so that you don't have to concentrate on sustaining that ability (That is, you can still use the ability granted by the spell, but no longer have to concentrate on giving yourself said ability).
So I could also in effect cast 10000 levitate spells on 10000 marionette's lock each one and have them reinact a huge battle without any penalty because the lock is sustaining the spell.
I agree the lock could sustain a spell but where does it say the lock allows you to change the spell once locked?
In my view once locked unless recast you couldn't change the spell.
To take your reasoning one step further since you said:
The ability that is locked when levitate is put into a focus is the casters ability to move the target with his mind.
why not interpret it that the ability that is locked is the ability to levitate. Why are you setting limits on that it has to be the same object. If you can change speed and direction why not target also.
If you have SR3 could you quote where you are allowed to change a spell once locked?
Sporg
I agree the lock could sustain a spell but where does it say the lock allows you to change the spell once locked?
In my view once locked unless recast you couldn't change the spell.
To take your reasoning one step further since you said:
The ability that is locked when levitate is put into a focus is the casters ability to move the target with his mind.
why not interpret it that the ability that is locked is the ability to levitate. Why are you setting limits on that it has to be the same object. If you can change speed and direction why not target also.
If you have SR3 could you quote where you are allowed to change a spell once locked?
Sporg
| QUOTE (Eyeless Blond @ Mar 13 2005, 10:23 PM) | ||
Funny thing is, all this is irrelevant for Levitate. Let's look at the spell description:
It doesn't say "the person controlling the spell," it says caster. Does the sustaining focus cast the spell? No. Therefore it is not the caster, and has nothing to do with control over the livitate spell's effects. In fact, the same thing can be said of all sustained spells. In all the spell descriptions it's the *caster* that is granted the abilities, not whatever is currently in control of the spell. The exception is most detection spells, where it is the target which is granted the abilities. This whole discussion is irrelevant. |
There ya go.
Oh, and let's not get into the marionettes thing. If you bothered to read any of the first four or so pages that type of argument has been beaten to death, dragged from its grave, beaten to death *again*, and repeated so many times that noone cares anymore about it. Seriously, read the first three or four pages of the thread. If you want a summation it's this: spell-sustaining TN modifiers have little to nothing to do with the complexity of the action attempted; that is solely the province of the base TN for the action itself, which in this case is set by the GM as midair choreography is not covered anywhere by the books. Further, a sustaining focus takes over sustaining the spell for you, so you don't get any TN modifiers from sustaining the spell.
The consesus with the reinacting a battle, is you have to be able to have that many spells on that many things, then make a performance check.
| QUOTE (sporg) |
| So I could also in effect cast 10000 levitate spells on 10000 marionette's lock each one and have them reinact a huge battle without any penalty because the lock is sustaining the spell. I agree the lock could sustain a spell but where does it say the lock allows you to change the spell once locked? In my view once locked unless recast you couldn't change the spell. To take your reasoning one step further since you said: The ability that is locked when levitate is put into a focus is the casters ability to move the target with his mind. why not interpret it that the ability that is locked is the ability to levitate. Why are you setting limits on that it has to be the same object. If you can change speed and direction why not target also. If you have SR3 could you quote where you are allowed to change a spell once locked? Sporg |
Hold it a second... haven't we already seen this guy? Wasn't he looking for a brain, or something? I'm sad to see he didn't make it to the Wizard. (Not you, Sporg, your example).
Rory's said as much and more before (although with the more sane number 12, and the even more sane number 6). Short answer: Yes. if you had a 10,000 Intelligence rating and a minimum 5000 Magic Rating, you could pull this off. You'd have to have some sort of vantage point where you could see them all, and I would suppose some sort of 'epic marionette warfare' knowledge skill, you could, indeed perform such an action. Of course, with a 10k Intelligence rating, you're already a god among .... well, brain dead ants, I suppose. At that level such trivial matters as skills and learned knowledge are petty things for much lesser individuals.
Please re-read statements made by most people in this thread, I beleive you'll find a bunch of quotes to the effect of what we just tried to tell you. Also, part of the long dead debate is in that nothing says you CAN'T change a spell once sustained (not 'locked', that's SR2, we're dealing in SR3), and the description of the spell provides the necessary information to show that the abilites granted wouldn't go away when the focus takes over sustaining. If you want to houserule it impossible, that's your business, but not canon.
You can't change target BTW, because the spell is cast on a single object and allows the caster to move that specific object telekinetically. You can change speed and direction of that object because that's what the spell lets you do, you cannot change the object, because that would require casting a new spell.
| QUOTE (sporg @ Mar 22 2005, 11:23 PM) |
| So I could also in effect cast 10000 levitate spells on 10000 marionette's lock each one and have them reinact a huge battle without any penalty because the lock is sustaining the spell. I agree the lock could sustain a spell but where does it say the lock allows you to change the spell once locked? In my view once locked unless recast you couldn't change the spell. To take your reasoning one step further since you said: The ability that is locked when levitate is put into a focus is the casters ability to move the target with his mind. why not interpret it that the ability that is locked is the ability to levitate. Why are you setting limits on that it has to be the same object. If you can change speed and direction why not target also. If you have SR3 could you quote where you are allowed to change a spell once locked? Sporg |
Locked does not exist in shadowrun 3.
The spell is not being changed. The spell is just being used as appropriate. Reread the earlier posts in the thread. All this has been explained, re-explained, explained again, and the misconceptions beaten with a steel plated core book.
Yes, we should have dikoted it too, it might have sunk a little better, but we didn't think it was worth the nuyen.
| QUOTE (sporg @ Mar 22 2005, 11:23 PM) |
| So I could also in effect cast 10000 levitate spells on 10000 marionette's lock each one and have them reinact a huge battle without any penalty because the lock is sustaining the spell. |
Holy Jesus! Look at the size of that strawman! Ah well, the bigger they are, the easier they are to knock down.
| QUOTE (sporg) |
| If you have SR3 could you quote where you are allowed to change a spell once locked? |
Can you tell me where, in either SR2 or SR3, it says that using a lock or sustaining focus prevents you from using the spell as it's described?
I stand corrected. Spell locks have changed 100%. I just read the rules on the new system sustained foci and yes you could do this. Basically in SR2 there was no way possible to do this. I am getting the books to read this weekend and will refrain from the forums until I finish them. Thanks guys sorry for the post.
S'okay, though you were basically using an extended version of Rory's original Strawman arguement.
Though to use your 1000 levitates, you'd need at least 1000 force 1 sustaining foci simultaneously, which means you need a magic rating of 500 to avoid magic loss and an intelligence of 1000 to use them all. At that point, you are god, so 1000 marionettes is pretty darn trivial.
But, as we stated before, the problem with levitating a bunch of people (6 is reasonable, and possible for starting characters) isn't the sustaining foci, nor is there any TN relating to that... there's just the TN for how hard it is to do a complex manipulation on 6 people in an artistic manner, which probably would result in a Performance(Dance) or Knowledge: Choreography check of appropriate difficulty.
And as said earlier, spell locks are from SR2, and no longer exist. In SR3, you have sustaining foci, which only remove the need for concentration and the TN+2 penalty, and do nothing else. They do not lock the spell in any way. They have no ability to think either, so if a spell says "the sustainer of this spell can do X" nothing happens. Luckily, levitate says "the caster of the spell can do X" not the sustainer. Levitate doesn't actually move things around... it just gives the caster the ability to move things around.
JaronK
Though to use your 1000 levitates, you'd need at least 1000 force 1 sustaining foci simultaneously, which means you need a magic rating of 500 to avoid magic loss and an intelligence of 1000 to use them all. At that point, you are god, so 1000 marionettes is pretty darn trivial.
But, as we stated before, the problem with levitating a bunch of people (6 is reasonable, and possible for starting characters) isn't the sustaining foci, nor is there any TN relating to that... there's just the TN for how hard it is to do a complex manipulation on 6 people in an artistic manner, which probably would result in a Performance(Dance) or Knowledge: Choreography check of appropriate difficulty.
And as said earlier, spell locks are from SR2, and no longer exist. In SR3, you have sustaining foci, which only remove the need for concentration and the TN+2 penalty, and do nothing else. They do not lock the spell in any way. They have no ability to think either, so if a spell says "the sustainer of this spell can do X" nothing happens. Luckily, levitate says "the caster of the spell can do X" not the sustainer. Levitate doesn't actually move things around... it just gives the caster the ability to move things around.
JaronK
Funnily enough, in SR2 I think Spell Locks may have made a clearer explanation of all this than SR3 sustaining foci. I'm referencing p. 138 for this:
| QUOTE |
| Once activated, the spell lock sustains the spell from astral space without any additional involvement of the spellcaster |
However, in both SR2 and SR3 the key thing, I feel, is not what is said, but what is not. Both spell locks and sustaining foci say that they sustain the spell (spell locks, to me, infer a little more that "sustain" does indeed equate to "power"). Neither of them explicitly state that using a lock/focus prevents you from utilising that spell in the normal fashion.
This has already been said, but for the record: Levitate, like Increase Reflexes, bestows an ability upon the target. In the case of IR, it's the ability to react to a situation more rapidly. In the case of Levitate, it's the ability to move something with your mind. As long as the spell exists, the bestowed ability is available to the target. The spell lock or focus keeps the spell in existence without the need for the casting magician to do so - it acts as a conduit for the magical energies from Astral Space which power spells (this was again a little clearer in SR2 where that conduit could be used offensively to ground spells from Astral Space to Meat Space).
Following from that statement, here's another thing to consider: Both spell locks and sustaining foci maintain an astral link to the casting magician at all times. If the lock/focus is doing ALL the work for a spell - powering it AND "controlling" it - what's the astral link? It's not the astral fingerprint of the casting mage, that's covered under Astral Signatures. Could it conceivably be the link by which the magician manipulates the spell effect? I think that it is. YMMV.
No, though I side with the useful levitation sustaining focus side, the link from the focus to the caster allows the caster to shut off the focus, not control the spell effects.
Question:
If the caster of a spell onto a sustaining focus can change the spells effects, would it requier a action?
GM call.
I think that part of the +2TN for sustaiing spells includes the effort in changing it's effects. Sense the Focus sustains it the caster would need to use a free/simple/complex action or somthing like that to change the spells efect. Depending on how complex teh chaneg is.
Ex. Levitate
Changing
speed Free
Direction Free
Speed & direction Simple
Speed, Direction and spinnn complex (asuming you can spin an object w/ the levitate spell)
This would be a good compramize.
Physical mask
1 color free
contrast free
Clothing simple
completly difrent complex
If the caster of a spell onto a sustaining focus can change the spells effects, would it requier a action?
GM call.
I think that part of the +2TN for sustaiing spells includes the effort in changing it's effects. Sense the Focus sustains it the caster would need to use a free/simple/complex action or somthing like that to change the spells efect. Depending on how complex teh chaneg is.
Ex. Levitate
Changing
speed Free
Direction Free
Speed & direction Simple
Speed, Direction and spinnn complex (asuming you can spin an object w/ the levitate spell)
This would be a good compramize.
Physical mask
1 color free
contrast free
Clothing simple
completly difrent complex
You could houserule something like that, but it would be inconsistant with the rest of the spell and the spell description. By your example even sustaining the spell yourself you'd have to use action to change speed and direction, etc. The +2 is for maintaining the spell, not using it's effects, so when in a sustaining focus you can still use the effects as indicated in the spell description, but do not suffer the +2.
Another thing is this: An Armor spell has a +2 for sustaining it as well, but you don't have to change effects at all with that one. Why is sustaining an Armor spell more difficult than sustaining a Levitate spell (which it would have to be if part of the +2 on Levitate came from manipulating the spell's effects)? The answer is it isn't, since both have the same target modifier to them.
Casting a Physical mask is a complex action already, changing the appearance (and other traits) at casting, requiring no other actions to it.
Short answer: No, it would not require an action, unless you were trying to do something rediculously complex and the GM ruled you need a skill test and an action to get it done (and even then it's GMO).
Another thing is this: An Armor spell has a +2 for sustaining it as well, but you don't have to change effects at all with that one. Why is sustaining an Armor spell more difficult than sustaining a Levitate spell (which it would have to be if part of the +2 on Levitate came from manipulating the spell's effects)? The answer is it isn't, since both have the same target modifier to them.
Casting a Physical mask is a complex action already, changing the appearance (and other traits) at casting, requiring no other actions to it.
Short answer: No, it would not require an action, unless you were trying to do something rediculously complex and the GM ruled you need a skill test and an action to get it done (and even then it's GMO).
| QUOTE (Da9iel) |
| No, though I side with the useful levitation sustaining focus side, the link from the focus to the caster allows the caster to shut off the focus, not control the spell effects. |
As I said, YMMV. But I don't think there's a canon answer to that one anyway.
| QUOTE (DrJest Posted on Mar 23 2005 @ 03:52 AM) |
| Following from that statement, here's another thing to consider: Both spell locks and sustaining foci maintain an astral link to the casting magician at all times. If the lock/focus is doing ALL the work for a spell - powering it AND "controlling" it - what's the astral link? It's not the astral fingerprint of the casting mage, that's covered under Astral Signatures. Could it conceivably be the link by which the magician manipulates the spell effect? I think that it is. YMMV. |
| QUOTE (DrJest Posted on Mar 23 2005 @ 05:08 PM) | ||
As I said, YMMV. But I don't think there's a canon answer to that one anyway. |
I get a canon answer from the description of sustaining foci SR3 pp. 190-191. It mentions that the focus' owner can deactivate the focus at any time. It doesn't mention controlling the spell. When you ask, "If the lock/focus is doing ALL the work for a spell - powering it AND 'controlling' it - what's the astral link?" you infer that the link is for controlling the spell. That inference is false. The ability to deactivate the focus at any time adequately explains the existence of the astral link. If you want to argue that the astral link ALSO allows the caster some control over the spell, I won't argue against that. I was disagreeing with your evidence, not your conclusion.
| QUOTE |
| Locked does not exist in shadowrun 3 |
Except that it is stated in sustaining foci description that the spell is "locked".
| QUOTE |
| The spell is not being changed. The spell is just being used as appropriate. |
Using appropriate to what? Changing conditions...change being the key word. Quite a munchkin's interpretation to allow all that change to the spell.
| QUOTE |
Can you tell me where, in either SR2 or SR3, it says that using a lock or sustaining focus prevents you from using the spell as it's described? |
Can you show us where it states implictly the munchkin version? It isn't described as allowing control over the spell. Unless you have a direct quote that it does. Remember someone pointed out that if canon does not state a thing is allowed, then it is not allowed. That's what I was told.
| QUOTE |
| Once activated, the spell lock sustains the spell from astral space without any additional involvement of the spellcaster |
This doesn't say anything different from what it says in SR3, it just lends support to what I have been saying all along. The spell gets no more involvement from the caster, "involvement" is changing effects to meet changing circumstance. This is the very description of "locked".
| QUOTE |
| Neither of them explicitly state that using a lock/focus prevents you from utilising that spell in the normal fashion. |
Only if you agree that sustaining a spell is seperate from changing the effects where effects are allowed to be changed to meet varied conditions. Nowhere in canon makes this distinction. It is either sustaining or not. There is no powering and manipulating effects sub division, by canon. It is my interpretation that either could account for the +2 TN for sustaining a spell and that the designers did not have time to go thru and place a differing TN to each and every spell, though more accurate, it is just as easy to say it is a generic +2 to manipulating the effects of all spells.
| QUOTE |
| In the case of Levitate, it's the ability to move something with your mind. As long as the spell exists, the bestowed ability is available to the target. |
Just because you have an ability to do something it doesn't mean using the ability wouldn't give a TN penalty for doing other things. It is a seperate issue, but if the spell levitate was allowed to be used in direct violation of the locked aspect of the foci. A +2 TN makes sense. Contrary to the genius level posters who can chew bubble gum and be annoying to their mommy and daddy at the same time it is impossible to divide the part of your conscious brain into that many different tasks without some penalty. As I pointed out before, you can control 1 focus per point of intelligence. If you had a 12 intelligence you could cast 12 Force 1 levitates. This does not mean that you can violate the locked part of the spell and move all 12 subjects at one time with no penalty. Just think of this simple analogy; say you can control the computer mouse with your mind, you can navigate thru a maze that takes a full round to complete just fine, but can you navigate thru 12 mazes simultaneously with 12 different mouse pointers? No, of course not, nobody has answered this. Instead they point out they can chew bubble gum and fart without thinking...wow, impressive.
| QUOTE |
| Following from that statement, here's another thing to consider: Both spell locks and sustaining foci maintain an astral link to the casting magician at all times. If the lock/focus is doing ALL the work for a spell - powering it AND "controlling" it - what's the astral link? It's not the astral fingerprint of the casting mage, that's covered under Astral Signatures. Could it conceivably be the link by which the magician manipulates the spell effect? I think that it is. YMMV. |
That is a possibility. Or it is a possibility that locked means no changing effects. Locked in place is locked in place. I say the rules are vague others scolded me and said no they are clear.
| QUOTE |
| The +2 is for maintaining the spell, not using it's effects, so when in a sustaining focus you can still use the effects as indicated in the spell description, but do not suffer the +2. |
For spells that require no further changes I agree wth you. For spells like levitate, absolutely not.
| QUOTE |
| Why is sustaining an Armor spell more difficult than sustaining a Levitate spell (which it would have to be if part of the +2 on Levitate came from manipulating the spell's effects)? The answer is it isn't, since both have the same target modifier to them. |
No, the developers maybe didn't want to go thru every spell and put realistic TNs on each one. The +2 is generic.
| QUOTE |
| Quite a munchkin's interpretation to allow all that change to the spell. |
The key word here is interpretation. There is insufficient evidence in the text as written to make a definitive judgement. You think your interpretation is correct, you disagree with the other interpretation.
That does not make the other interpretation 'munchkin'. Calling the other interpretation 'munchkin' does nothing to assist your argument.
That does not make the other interpretation 'munchkin'. Calling the other interpretation 'munchkin' does nothing to assist your argument.
| QUOTE |
| Can you tell me where, in either SR2 or SR3, it says that using a lock or sustaining focus prevents you from using the spell as it's described? |
| QUOTE |
| Can you show us where it states implictly the munchkin version? It isn't described as allowing control over the spell. Unless you have a direct quote that it does. |
I don't believe the SR3 rules do either of these things. The SR rules don't ever state that you have control over a levitate spell. They state that the levitate spell lets you move things telekinetically, granting you an ability you would not otherwise have. Sustaining the spell merely ensures that you retain that ability.
I see no reason for sustaining the spell using a focus to remove from you the ability to control the new faculty that the spell provides: you are not controlling the spell, just what the spell lets you do. This is an important distinction, and one you seem to continually ignore.
| QUOTE |
| Just because you have an ability to do something it doesn't mean using the ability wouldn't give a TN penalty for doing other things. |
As you concede: this is a separate issue from sustaining the spell. However, using the ability granted by the spell (regardless of how it is sustained) does not necessarily constitute changing the parameters of the spell itself.
| QUOTE |
| it is impossible to divide the part of your conscious brain into that many different tasks without some penalty. |
Would you not agree that it's easy enough to pay attention to several different tasks without being distracted too much, depending on how difficult the tasks are?. I can carry out a conversation and drive on the motorway at the same time.
Task difficulty in Shadowrun is established by the GM.
| QUOTE |
| That is a possibility. Or it is a possibility that locked means no changing effects. Locked in place is locked in place. I say the rules are vague others scolded me and said no they are clear. |
The rules will always be unclear and require interpretation.
You have said that they are unclear, and provided your interpretation. Several people, me included, disagree with you.
You have also said what you think the rules should say, and then used that in several cases to justify your interpretation. That's fine, but only in your game. If you want to have a discussion about the rules of the game with other people, you need a common ground as a basis for discussion.
We can talk about poker all we want, until rules of the house come in, neh? Same point.
| QUOTE |
| No, the developers maybe didn't want to go thru every spell and put realistic TNs on each one. The +2 is generic. |
And which developer did you ask to establish this piece of information? It might be true. But it might equally be true that sustaining a spell imposes a +2 penalty for sustaining any spell because the act of sustaining a spell is identical for all spells.
Your answer is an interpretation. It could be valid. If you want to find out, email Rob or the FAQ and ask. Me, I'm happy to apply Occam's razor, and just go for the simpler explanation: the second one.
| QUOTE (Tarantula) |
| Good job avoiding my post Rory, which completely destroys yours. Levitate is a passive spell. It grants you an ability. The same as improve strength grants you one. Higher strength/moving an object with your mind. Strictly speaking, at best, you could say the target could never change, which is correct, nor could the caster ever change. Great. Now, the spells affects are the caster can move the target with the caster's mind. Those don't change either. Address that. |
Again, Rory, try responding to my post, which you have ignored twice now.
I've always handles sustaining foci like tisoz and Bitbasher do. It make sense to me that If you ain't sustaining it, you ain't controlling it.
I don't see how you can expect to maintain detailed control over a spell without using any actions and without any TN modifiers due to divided attention.
Mages are powerful, but they do have their limitations.
I don't see how you can expect to maintain detailed control over a spell without using any actions and without any TN modifiers due to divided attention.
Mages are powerful, but they do have their limitations.
And spending 2x karma and 
15000(x) on a locked spell (x = Force) isn't limitation enough?
As with everything, I guess mileage varies.
15000(x) on a locked spell (x = Force) isn't limitation enough?As with everything, I guess mileage varies.
Locked isn't petrified. Your interpretation rests on the believe that the spell is completely petrified the instant it's put into a sustaining focus. We've already discussed this Rory: none of the other spells are. You can move in an armour spell, which is a force field over the skin. You can pick up an egg while under a force 10 increase strength spell, without breaking it. You can walk at normal speeds under an increased quickness spell. If the spell was petrified, then you'd be stationary in the armour spell -- it's a force field, and moving it is changing it (under your interpretation of changing spells). An increased strength spell would mean that you have a minimum strength on any action of 1 + (bonus), we'll say 5 for the purposes of the argument, so minimum strength on the most delicate task of 6.. egg breaks. You'd have to walk at 1 + (bonus) per phase under the quickness spell.
Unless you can justify why those work in sustaining foci, when the spell affects are completely unable to be changed, then you you should go back to the drawing board.
The passive spell argument doesn't work. It's not an acceptable reason -- there have been enough arguments given as to why there is no distinction.
Note: This argument is not a straw man. It's a deliberate argument against your concept of how sustaining foci work, utilizing 3 examples which are quite relevent.
Unless you can justify why those work in sustaining foci, when the spell affects are completely unable to be changed, then you you should go back to the drawing board.
The passive spell argument doesn't work. It's not an acceptable reason -- there have been enough arguments given as to why there is no distinction.
Note: This argument is not a straw man. It's a deliberate argument against your concept of how sustaining foci work, utilizing 3 examples which are quite relevent.
| QUOTE (Lantzer) |
| I've always handles sustaining foci like tisoz and Bitbasher do. It make sense to me that If you ain't sustaining it, you ain't controlling it. I don't see how you can expect to maintain detailed control over a spell without using any actions and without any TN modifiers due to divided attention. Mages are powerful, but they do have their limitations. |
You don't control the levitate spell once its cast though. It gives the caster the ability to move things with his mind. Much the same as an armor spell gives the caster magical armor. It gives the caster something. Thats what the spell does. The caster actually moving something is utilizing what the spell gives him, just the same as being shot utilizes what the armor gives him.
Other spells similar to levitate:
Improved Strength: Allows the target to move things he otherwise couldn't using his muscles. If in a sustaining focus, can he not move at all? After all, his muscles are now "locked."
Clairvoyance: Allows the caster to see other locations. If in a sustaining focus, can the caster only see from one angle in one location?
Armour: Creates a glowing forcefield around the caster. If in a sustaining focus, the armour is locked, so the caster can't move?
Night Vision: Allows the caster to see as though he had low light vision. If in a sustaining focus, can the caster not move his eyes?
Improved Reflexes: Allows the target to respond quickly to various threats. If in a sustaining focus, does the caster have to concentrate each time the target wants to move quickly?
In all these cases, the answer is no. The spell grants an ability to the target or caster. Who gets the ability is clearly defined by the spell itself (which is also true for levitate, it's the caster). In no case is the "sustainer" of the spell given any degree of control over the spell. In all cases, claiming that would make the spell impossible to use in a sustaining focus... in fact, I can't think of a single sustained spell that could work in a sustaining focus under that interpretation.
Look, canon is crystal clear. A sustaining focus sustains a spell. The spells do what they say, and are controlled by who they say. Sustaining foci do not change this, because they don't say they do. This is all written out in the book.
JaronK
Improved Strength: Allows the target to move things he otherwise couldn't using his muscles. If in a sustaining focus, can he not move at all? After all, his muscles are now "locked."
Clairvoyance: Allows the caster to see other locations. If in a sustaining focus, can the caster only see from one angle in one location?
Armour: Creates a glowing forcefield around the caster. If in a sustaining focus, the armour is locked, so the caster can't move?
Night Vision: Allows the caster to see as though he had low light vision. If in a sustaining focus, can the caster not move his eyes?
Improved Reflexes: Allows the target to respond quickly to various threats. If in a sustaining focus, does the caster have to concentrate each time the target wants to move quickly?
In all these cases, the answer is no. The spell grants an ability to the target or caster. Who gets the ability is clearly defined by the spell itself (which is also true for levitate, it's the caster). In no case is the "sustainer" of the spell given any degree of control over the spell. In all cases, claiming that would make the spell impossible to use in a sustaining focus... in fact, I can't think of a single sustained spell that could work in a sustaining focus under that interpretation.
Look, canon is crystal clear. A sustaining focus sustains a spell. The spells do what they say, and are controlled by who they say. Sustaining foci do not change this, because they don't say they do. This is all written out in the book.
JaronK
| QUOTE |
| I see no reason for sustaining the spell using a focus to remove from you the ability to control the new faculty that the spell provides: you are not controlling the spell, just what the spell lets you do. This is an important distinction, and one you seem to continually ignore. |
Because you ignore the fact it is "locked", locked means no further input allowed. No going faster, no going higher, no changing direction. Locked, you seem to continually ignore this sticky little part in your interpretation of the rules. Unless you have canon saying you can change parameters of sustained spells in spell locks then you can't and levitate does not work in a spell lock. Being lenient is allowing it to work, but requiring the mage to suffer the +2 TN for manipulating the spell, which I have argued with sound logic is what sustaining actually is since there is no distinction given for powering and using a spell at all.
| QUOTE |
| As you concede: this is a separate issue from sustaining the spell. However, using the ability granted by the spell (regardless of how it is sustained) does not necessarily constitute changing the parameters of the spell itself. |
If for some reason you feel I concede this part, I wish to go on the record to say I do not see a difference. Perhaps you are confusing two seperate stances I have on the subject. One being levitate does not work in a spell lock. And two, if it doe it gets the +2 TN for sustaining the spell, because nothing has changed by placing it in a lock except the need to resist drain each future use of it's abilities.
| QUOTE |
| Would you not agree that it's easy enough to pay attention to several different tasks without being distracted too much, depending on how difficult the tasks are? |
Not if one of the tasks is levitating an object that you can't break eye contact with, absolutely not. You are setting up a straw man argunent by taking this off topic to discuss the supposed ease of doing a phsical task requiring very little concentration, one that I should add that was programmed into our species with millions of years of evolution to make it easy. Magic has been around, what? Couple of generations at best? Try answering my example of having your screen divided into 6 mazes. You can move the mouse with your mind, each maze takes 3 seconds to complete, would the spell sustained in a foci allow you to give little or no thought to completing the maze? I think the honest answer is no, it makes no sense, and is quite ridiculous if you think it thru, just like it is ridiculous to assume there is no TN penalty to levitaing should a GM be lenient enough to allow you to sustain it in a foci.
| QUOTE |
| The rules will always be unclear and require interpretation. |
Sure, you and I agree, then guys like JaronK will post a few hours later that the rules are quite clear. Common sense tells you the rules are not clear or we would not be here beating a tired horse.
| QUOTE |
| And which developer did you ask to establish this piece of information? It might be true. But it might equally be true that sustaining a spell imposes a +2 penalty for sustaining any spell because the act of sustaining a spell is identical for all spells. |
Given enough time I might be able to find the quote actually. Not every nit picky little thing is possible to put in canon. This is a good reason to use common sense and good judgment when dealing with any rules system. They are there as a tool to have fun, nothing else. There is no reason to treat it like the Holy Bible. And on the errata page they even admit to making mistakes.
| QUOTE |
| Your answer is an interpretation. It could be valid. If you want to find out, email Rob or the FAQ and ask. Me, I'm happy to apply Occam's razor, and just go for the simpler explanation: the second one. |
I doubt he would have the time to look into it for one. But the simpler interpretation to me is not to allow anything but passive spells in a spell lock, ones that require zero thought to sustain AND manipulate, if there is even a difference.
| QUOTE |
| Mages are powerful, but they do have their limitations. |
Of course, which is why I call it the munchkin interpretation to allow them to levitate around like some DnD monster, at will.
| QUOTE |
| And spending 2x karma and 15000(x) on a locked spell (x = Force) isn't limitation enough? |
That is peanuts. A starting character can have 6 or more of them easy. And a more innovative minded munchkin can come up with something much more abusive than just doing Swan Lake in air while studying calculus. It is not a straw man to point out possible abuses to a questionable interpretation of the rules. It is nothing more than showing that one interpretationa allows the outrageous abuses and the other does not. Call it a straw man if you want, but at the heart it is solid steel logic.
| QUOTE |
| Locked isn't petrified. Your interpretation rests on the believe that the spell is completely petrified the instant it's put into a sustaining focus. |
Locked doesn't mean loose, as in sort of locked, but able to move around and be flexible to meet changing needs. Your interpretation allows you to have snow tires on in the winter, slicks for racing, and radials for a long drive, without ever loosening a lug nut. That's nuts. It's eithe rlocked or it isn't. Show me a quote that says you can change around a locked spell, or agree that I could be right. At least I have admitted your side could be right. It needs to be cleared up.
| QUOTE |
| We've already discussed this Rory: none of the other spells are. You can move in an armour spell, which is a force field over the skin. You can pick up an egg while under a force 10 increase strength spell, without breaking it. You can walk at normal speeds under an increased quickness spell. If the spell was petrified, then you'd be stationary in the armour spell -- it's a force field, and moving it is changing it (under your interpretation of changing spells). An increased strength spell would mean that you have a minimum strength on any action of 1 + (bonus), we'll say 5 for the purposes of the argument, so minimum strength on the most delicate task of 6.. egg breaks. You'd have to walk at 1 + (bonus) per phase under the quickness spell. Unless you can justify why those work in sustaining foci, when the spell affects are completely unable to be changed, then you you should go back to the drawing board. |
I've been all over it. Those spells once locked do not require any attention to sustain. They actually can be locked with no further concentration required. They will literally work when the mage is asleep. Unlike levitate and mind control spells.
| QUOTE |
| The passive spell argument doesn't work. It's not an acceptable reason -- there have been enough arguments given as to why there is no distinction. |
And I either destroyed each one as it was posted, or you are reading too much into what has been posted.
| QUOTE |
| You don't control the levitate spell once its cast though. It gives the caster the ability to move things with his mind. |
And that requires a) you must keep your eye on the object the entire time, which is very distracting. b) you have to change a locked spell constantly to use it. and c) nowhere in canon has it said you can change a spell around once it is locked.
| QUOTE |
Improved Strength: Allows the target to move things he otherwise couldn't using his muscles. If in a sustaining focus, can he not move at all? After all, his muscles are now "locked |
You don't lock the target. You lock the spell effects as long as the spell requires no further changing. If you want to house rule no spells work in a foci I am all for it.
| QUOTE |
| Good job avoiding my post Rory, which completely destroys yours. Levitate is a passive spell. It grants you an ability. The same as improve strength grants you one. Higher strength/moving an object with your mind. Strictly speaking, at best, you could say the target could never change, which is correct, nor could the caster ever change. Great. Now, the spells affects are the caster can move the target with the caster's mind. Those don't change either. Address that. Again, Rory, try responding to my post, which you have ignored twice now. |
Tarantula, don't flatter yourself. This question is so easy to splatter all over the thread it is not worth answering. Levitate is not a passive spell. Try levitating without thinking...at all. Unless you are prepared to say the foci levitates you intuitvely then levitate is not a passive spell. My 8 year old understands this. You have to at least have the milli second brain fart you think it requires to move the target to form the idea in the first place right? Meanwhile I am asleep with my word barrier up safe from ill thought out straw arguments. Splat....
It wasn't worth answering, but it was worth writing nine sentences about how it's not worth answering?
Yup. Spring's coming. Soon well get to watch baseball. Yup.
Out of curiousity, couldn't you, you know, use a levitation focus to levitate yourself? Or would putting it into the focus of doom accelerate you at a constant rate of (F x M) Meters per turn until you paste yourself against the nearest surface with a high enough barrier rating to stop you?
This has gone on for 11 days, now. Y'all are at each other's throats about the possible implications of letting people LEVITATE. Couldn't this have just been solved by a simple 'In my game' or 'Not in my game' answer? It's insane.
This has gone on for 11 days, now. Y'all are at each other's throats about the possible implications of letting people LEVITATE. Couldn't this have just been solved by a simple 'In my game' or 'Not in my game' answer? It's insane.
Agreed, particularly since the argument was over a week ago, and the rest has been trying to teach Rory how and why none of his arguments have made any logical sense.
Since this is the only part of your arguement worth responding to:
| QUOTE (Rory) |
| Of course, which is why I call it the munchkin interpretation to allow them to levitate around like some DnD monster, at will. |
D&D's Levitate only lets you move up and down in a straight line. Try another analogy.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.