By the book, a sustaining focus only sustains a spell.
Does the caster of a sustained spell have control over it after he casts the spell? There is nothing in canon that says that he does, apart from the fact that he can stop the spell by ceasing the sustaining. However, he is in control of abilities that the spell grants him. If he casts Phantasm, he has the ability to create illusions. If he casts Levitate, he can lift an object and move it around. If he casts Control Thoughts, he seizes control of a mind. However, to do things with the abilities granted by the sustained spell, is another matter.
Full Version: sustain focus, can it sustain any spell?
The book ninja has spoken.
[ Spoiler ]
| QUOTE (Rory Blackhand @ Mar 13 2005, 10:53 PM) | ||
But I was just joking. My team is going to fly around and drop grenades on you from an elevation out of gunshot range. And I am going to control it all without so much as a +1 TN to my other spells I will be casting. I have yet to see any reasonable argument for why sustaining a spell in a spell focus means you still have control over it. |
Poor team, all dead of asphyxiation, with grenades going off halfway between them and the ground... I mean... 5 seconds.. that's what final displacement when dropped of what? 60m, give or take? So.. around the limits of heavy pistol extreme range.. out of range for the light ones..., just long range for smgs, and medium for assualt rifles..short for rifles... extreme for shotguns.... Poor team, they can't even dodge the counterfire (since the MAGE is controlling the spell, not them)
Shouldn't be that hard to keep a group of people moving in the same direction though. No harder then drawing lines with a fistful of pencils at least.
As for the 'reasonable argument' comment...
Assuming, of course, that you simply are not reading the posts about it, then you should.
If, however, you are reading those posts, then why are they not reasonable? There are explanations posted, if you do not accept them, then refute them. Otherwise, by virtue of NOT BEING DEBATED, they must be accepted as reasonable.
Edit: Asphyxiation is based upon the team being high enough to be out of range of gunfire, and is an exaggeration - the 1km that would put them out of range of a sniper rifle is not enough that they would be unable to breathe.
Likewise, I may be slightly off on the displacement calculation. It's been a while since I did the work with the formulai.
For example, if he chooses to levitate something to some place, it is an action that does not require him to expand any Free, Simple or Complex action much like Movement does not require you to expand any Free, Simple or Complex action. However, if he is using levitate to perform a ballet dance in mid-air. Then he is using a Use Skill complex action.
Likewise, for directing an illusionary dance, he is also using a Use Skill complex action.
Hope this clears things up.
Likewise, for directing an illusionary dance, he is also using a Use Skill complex action.
Hope this clears things up.
| QUOTE |
| My team is going to fly around and drop grenades on you from an elevation out of gunshot range. And I am going to control it all without so much as a +1 TN to my other spells I will be casting. |
How can you be sure that your team-mates are out of gunshot range? How do you maneuver your team-mates? What skill is that? Please expend a complex action and roll your Small Unit Tactics Knowledge skill(perfectly canon) please.
| QUOTE (toturi) |
| By the book, a sustaining focus only sustains a spell. Does the caster of a sustained spell have control over it after he casts the spell? There is nothing in canon that says that he does, apart from the fact that he can stop the spell by ceasing the sustaining. |
Yes there is. The part that says the caster has control over the spell he casts. I mean come on, the book says the caster has control, in black and white. Sustaining foci don't say anything about changing that.
JaronK
Gee, who'd think that a potent piece of magic astrally welded onto your aura would give you an advantage over somebody who didn't have one?
| QUOTE |
| Yes there is. The part that says the caster has control over the spell he casts. I mean come on, the book says the caster has control, in black and white. Sustaining foci don't say anything about changing that. |
It would be nice if you had a quote.
| QUOTE (Dissonance) |
| Gee, who'd think that a potent piece of magic astrally welded onto your aura would give you an advantage over somebody who didn't have one? |
It's not a book quote, but it's a quote I support none the less. A Sustaining Focus lets you use the spell, without the sustaining modifiers. That's what you pay for, and I see no problem with that being what you get.
Out of curiosity, say you pull a sustaining focus off a recently deceased mage, how do you figure out what spell it's set to sustain? Or does it not matter, since you're going to have to bond it before you can use it anyway, and then you can reset it to any spell you like?
Toturi... the passage in the rulebook that says the caster has control of a spell has already been quoted in this thread. Unless sustaining foci say anything about changing who has control of a spell, that statement still stands. Or are you now claiming that the caster of a spell doesn't have control of a spell he casts and sustains himself? Because if sustaining foci don't change who has control, then the person in control of a spell cast into a sustaining focus is the same as the person who casts in normally.
JaronK
JaronK
| QUOTE |
| It's not a book quote, but it's a quote I support none the less. A Sustaining Focus lets you use the spell, without the sustaining modifiers. That's what you pay for, and I see no problem with that being what you get. |
This is a bit of a misleading statement. It never says you get to use the spell, it says it sustains the spell. That may seem like a bit of semantic bickering, but the implications for this discussion are important.
The book makes no disctinction either way, it's a GM call.
Incidentally, I allow any spell to be thrown into a spell lock up to the force of the lock, the spell doesnt have to be chosen when the lock is bonded. I don't however allow the spell to be directly controlled if in a spell lock. This was actually my player's ideas. They thought it made more sense that way.
The book makes no disctinction either way, it's a GM call.
Incidentally, I allow any spell to be thrown into a spell lock up to the force of the lock, the spell doesnt have to be chosen when the lock is bonded. I don't however allow the spell to be directly controlled if in a spell lock. This was actually my player's ideas. They thought it made more sense that way.
| QUOTE (Rory Blackhand) |
| Well, it is late here. I have to sleep. Tomorrow I will show you that you are wrong. In the meantime can anyone tell me how they plan to make exacting and advanced manuevers with 12 levitated friends while studying calculus? If anyone has ever juggled you will understand what I am saying. You just can't focus your mind on that many different tasks at once. There would be a penalty regardless of what rules lawyers dig up. It is just too sensless otherwise and I have yet to be convinced. |
A mage needs LOS to control what he is levitating. If he is looking at a calculus textbook he isn't looking at where his flying ballerinas are going. Therefore, they are just going to float in place. A mage can't just hand off levitate foci like he would invisibility foci. The spell has to be controlled as well as sustained and controlling it requires Line of Sight. That alone is limitation enough.
It has been pointed out that the sustaining focus is connected to its owner astrally. He still has a direct link to the spell.
| QUOTE (Sandoval Smith @ Mar 14 2005, 07:00 PM) |
| Out of curiosity, say you pull a sustaining focus off a recently deceased mage, how do you figure out what spell it's set to sustain? Or does it not matter, since you're going to have to bond it before you can use it anyway, and then you can reset it to any spell you like? |
It really wouldn't matter, because when you pay the Karma to bond the Focus, you set the specific spell it can sustain. I don't believe you could just pick up and use that Sec-Mage's Force 1 Increase Reflexes 3 Sustaining Focus without first bonding it yourself.
| QUOTE (JaronK @ Mar 14 2005, 04:20 PM) |
| Toturi... the passage in the rulebook that says the caster has control of a spell has already been quoted in this thread. Unless sustaining foci say anything about changing who has control of a spell, that statement still stands. Or are you now claiming that the caster of a spell doesn't have control of a spell he casts and sustains himself? Because if sustaining foci don't change who has control, then the person in control of a spell cast into a sustaining focus is the same as the person who casts in normally. JaronK |
I can't find the quote you are refering to, either in this thread or in any of the books. Please do quote if you can find it.
Unless the books specifically state that the caster of a spell has control of the spell, all I can find are instances that the caster of the spell is required to target certain things or the spell gives certain abilities to the caster. I've not seen control as in "the controller of a spell" or "control of a spell" anywhere in the rulebooks.
Baring a quote, I would say that the caster of a sustained spell is never in "control" of the spell. The spell enables him to do certain things, or gives him certain abilities. Either he sustains the spell or the focus sustains it for him, it makes no difference.
| QUOTE (toturi @ Mar 14 2005, 11:44 PM) |
| The spell enables him to do certain things, or gives him certain abilities. Either he sustains the spell or the focus sustains it for him, it makes no difference. |
That's the real point. It makes no difference whether the mage is sustaining the spell himself, or using a Focus. The spell still acts in the manner that the mage desires.
Wow, so it took you all night to come back to the statement I made back on page 2? 
| QUOTE |
| This whole discussion is irrelevant. |
Who is it you are talking about? I have maintained my position from my very first post on this subject.
Besides, this is still page 1!
Besides, this is still page 1!
| QUOTE (Fortune) |
| Besides, this is still page 1! |
What? Mine is on page 3! Burn him, he's a witch!
JaronK
Bah! Silly people that view the Forum on the '30 posts per page' setting. 
| QUOTE (Fortune) |
| Who is it you are talking about? I have maintained my position from my very first post on this subject. Besides, this is still page 1! |
Just saying it's good to have more people agreeing with me. I was feeling kinda beseiged here.
| QUOTE (Eyeless Blond) | ||
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. |
Theres your quote toturi. Bookninja title revoked!
I think control is given to the caster even if using a sustaining focus. That thing about the +2 sustaining mod being required to control spells is bull. You donīt get a tn mod to use the spell the mod comes from sustaining, do you? Then you can concentrate on using it all you like without mod, and then simply stop concentrating on it when doing something else, all thanks to that trusty focus. I also disagree with the thing said on first page, were the spell was passed between the caster and the focus. No, the spell is sustained by the focus, controled by the caster.
@Tarantula: Toturi may keep the "bookninja" title. Where does it say who is "controlling" the spell. Toturi's POV is accurate in saying that the spell (not needing control) grants telekinetic abilities to the caster. The caster controls the abilities, not necessarily the spell. Find a reference to controlling the spell and you will have won.
The whole point is that there is no such thing as "controlling" the spell itself. It's not only irrelevant to the discussion, but is little more than a piece of disctacting semantics. It is in fact impossible to "control" a spell; such a description would indicate that it's possible to change meta-properties of the spell itself on-the-fly, such as Force or number of net successes or indeed any property of the spell itself, which canon does not let you do. So forget about, "controlling the spell;" it's nothing more than a fool's game of semantics that is nowhere at all mentioned in canon whatsoever.
The only things you can in fact control about a spell is 1) who/what maintains the spell, which presumably means who/what maintains the mana flow/web/insert-fluff-here that keeps the spell going, and 2) who/what controlls the spell's effects. Note that these are not necessarily the same person/thing. For example, the spell Clairvoyance can be cast on a target, who then gets the benefits of the spell, which includes control over the spell's effect of viewing objects from a distance. The target can't take over maintaining the spell, nor can the caster take over the sense granted to the target, except in the degenerate case that they are the same person (caster casting Clairvoyance on himself).
So let's look at the issues in a bit more detail. 1) is pretty obvious: either a caster can maintain the spell himself, forcing a +1/+2 TN modifier for doing so; or he can pass it off to a sustaining focus, give it to/take it back from an elemental, or bind it to an elemental, etc.
The answer to 2) is also obvious if you look at the individual spell's description: either noone has control over the spell's granted abilities/effects (Armor spell, etc); the target gets control over the abilities/effects (most enhanced-sense Detection spells like Clairvoyance); or the caster gets control over the abilities/effects (most Manipulation spells like Levitate). Note, again, that who gets control over the spell's effects is dependent on the spell, and not--I repeat, NOT--on who or what is maintaining the spell.
Thus, a mage can cast a Levitate spell, use a sustaining focus to maintain the spell, and freely levitate whatever the sustaining focus is maintaining the spell on. This is because, although the focus is maintaining the spell, the spell description gives the caster control over the spell's effects.
Is that clear enough, or do I need to talk more slowly?
The only things you can in fact control about a spell is 1) who/what maintains the spell, which presumably means who/what maintains the mana flow/web/insert-fluff-here that keeps the spell going, and 2) who/what controlls the spell's effects. Note that these are not necessarily the same person/thing. For example, the spell Clairvoyance can be cast on a target, who then gets the benefits of the spell, which includes control over the spell's effect of viewing objects from a distance. The target can't take over maintaining the spell, nor can the caster take over the sense granted to the target, except in the degenerate case that they are the same person (caster casting Clairvoyance on himself).
So let's look at the issues in a bit more detail. 1) is pretty obvious: either a caster can maintain the spell himself, forcing a +1/+2 TN modifier for doing so; or he can pass it off to a sustaining focus, give it to/take it back from an elemental, or bind it to an elemental, etc.
The answer to 2) is also obvious if you look at the individual spell's description: either noone has control over the spell's granted abilities/effects (Armor spell, etc); the target gets control over the abilities/effects (most enhanced-sense Detection spells like Clairvoyance); or the caster gets control over the abilities/effects (most Manipulation spells like Levitate). Note, again, that who gets control over the spell's effects is dependent on the spell, and not--I repeat, NOT--on who or what is maintaining the spell.
Thus, a mage can cast a Levitate spell, use a sustaining focus to maintain the spell, and freely levitate whatever the sustaining focus is maintaining the spell on. This is because, although the focus is maintaining the spell, the spell description gives the caster control over the spell's effects.
Is that clear enough, or do I need to talk more slowly?
Oh, and you want quotes? Here:
| QUOTE (pg. 183 SR3 @ left column under "Spell Effect") |
| Consult the description of the spell for specific effects. |
In other words, RTFM.
| QUOTE (Tarantula) | ||
|
That was the quote I meant earlier. The caster moves the object about, not the sustainer.
JaronK
| QUOTE (Tarantula @ Mar 15 2005, 12:38 AM) | ||||
Theres your quote toturi. Bookninja title revoked! |
Like Da9iel says, your quote does not have the all important "Caster has control" clause. If you read what I had wrote, I had already said that whoever has control over the spell was irrelevant, the sustaining was independent of the abilties granted by the spell. Which I think was Eyeless' point.
| QUOTE |
| That was the quote I meant earlier. The caster moves the object about, not the sustainer. JaronK |
Yet there is nothing that says controller is the caster. Which was what you challenged me on, I think.
The quote says the spell lets the caster move things about. That's pretty clear about who controls the movement, to my mind.
JaronK
JaronK
Yes, the caster controls the movement but who controls the spell? The spell grants the movement capability and the caster has control of that capability. Which was my original point, there is no canon quote that definatively states that the controller of a spell is the caster. The caster may be granted abilities or control over those granted abilities (semantics here), but nothing definative about the controller of a spell.
But semantics aside and as many people has pointed out, who has control of a spell is irrelevant.
But semantics aside and as many people has pointed out, who has control of a spell is irrelevant.
So... you're saying that the sustaining focus has control of the spell, but the caster still controls what the spell does? What?
JaronK
JaronK
I am saying that there is nothing in canon that say who or what controls the spell. And game mechanically, it doesn't matter who actually controls the spell because until now, no one has been able to actively seize control of another person's spell unlike spirits. The caster is the person who is granted certain abilities, he uses them.
Double post
| QUOTE (Eyeless Blond Posted on Mar 14 2005 @ 06:19 PM) |
| The whole point is that there is no such thing as "controlling" the spell itself. (snip) The only things you can in fact control about a spell is 1) who/what maintains the spell, which presumably means who/what maintains the mana flow/web/insert-fluff-here that keeps the spell going, and 2) who/what controlls the spell's effects. (snip) ...if you look at the individual spell's description: either noone has control over the spell's granted abilities/effects (Armor spell, etc); the target gets control over the abilities/effects (most enhanced-sense Detection spells like Clairvoyance); or the caster gets control over the abilities/effects (most Manipulation spells like Levitate). (snip) Thus, a mage can cast a Levitate spell, use a sustaining focus to maintain the spell, and freely levitate whatever the sustaining focus is maintaining the spell on. This is because, although the focus is maintaining the spell, the spell description gives the caster control over the spell's effects. Is that clear enough, or do I need to talk more slowly? |
| QUOTE (JaronK Posted on Mar 14 2005 @ 07:19 PM) |
| So... you're saying that the sustaining focus has control of the spell, but the caster still controls what the spell does? What? |
Yes, Eyeless, a little more slowly.
P.S. Sorry about all the snips Eyeless. Trying desperately to make it clearer.
The problem we're having, and this is just dumb, is with the word 'control'. According to strict canon, nobody (at all) can 'control' a spell. The book never mentions 'controlling' a spell, so therefore it cannot happen. According to reason and the conventions of conversation, 'control' as has been used by myself and some others refers to the effects of the spell, specifically levitate's allowing the caster to manipulate whatever it has been cast on. In this way the caster 'controls' the spell (more specifically, the effects of the spell as dictated in the spell's description). Just because canon does not use that word does not make the word unuseable in that context. Think of it as a figure of speech.
If that isn't clear enough for everyone... Then by all means, continue.
If that isn't clear enough for everyone... Then by all means, continue.
| QUOTE |
| Wait. I just gotta see if I can organize your thoughts for you. |
Yes, I was in a hurry, but no, you do not need to organize my thoughts.
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
I never said the focus has control of the spell's effects. I said that once the spell has been cast and placed sustained by a focus the caster no longer has control over the effects of the spell. Nothing posted so far has proven me wrong.
| QUOTE |
| Since the focus is part of the caster's aura, the spell is still within his aura, and so, we can infer, the control of the spell is still in the aura. |
No we can't infer that. We can infer the spell is in the aura at best, not that it is still accessible to change once it is sustained by an inanimate object.
| QUOTE |
| Put away your strawmen before you get burned. |
Burn me if you are able. My position has logic, yours has mostly rules lawyering and munchkinism.
| QUOTE |
| The arguement being advanced is that when put into a Sustaining Foci, you still have the same ability to affect the performance of the spell as if you were still sustaining it yourself. |
That is one side of the argument. The other side is that you lose the ability to affect the performance of the spell because you are NOT sustaining it yourself. I am willing to accept either side. If it is the former, which makes less sense, then I want to see penalties applied for devoting part of your concentration to a task.
| QUOTE |
| I just had to keep a record of it, in case he edits later. |
You must be joking right? As if I give a damn about this debate enough to edit my post? Don't flatter yourself, kid. Honestly, you are not that important to me.
| QUOTE |
| Please do not throw down such a hefty gauntlet, you'll never be able to pick it up again, and I don't think the DS admins want it littering their floor. |
Hefty gauntlet? I thought we were all here to get the rules ironed out to where they make sense? You make this sound like it is personal? I don't feel that way, but I could if you insist on trying to patronize me. I find when someone is unsure of themselves or their words they sometimes attack the other person. Once again, don't flatter yourself. If I am wrong, which I haven't been shown that I am yet, I won't lose a wink of sleep and I'll be right back in here whenever I feel like it to challenge the next ridiculous item if I wish to devote any time on it.
| QUOTE |
| So I'm gonna be a grade 18 initiate at least. Now, to get to such a level of power, I've probably got to be able to do mental gymnastics that would drive lesser beings to madness |
Actually that would be making an assumption that is not covered anywhere in the rules. If you have some sort of mulitasking skill then please share.
| QUOTE |
| You cannot prove us wrong because there is no canon evidence of right or wrong in this case, just statement and interpretation. Take my word for it, it's not worth the effort. |
Canon, statements and rules lawyering do not concern me. I have common sense on my side. I think being able to control 6 levitation spells would require hefty TN penalties if it were allowed at all, which I have yet to see any reason it should be.
| QUOTE |
| To dissociate from Rory's 12 strawmen ballet, there is nothing in the description of Sustaining Foci that says they alter the nature of the spell. Levitate moves things where you tell it to. |
You can be insulting if you wish. Up to a point I care not. I am trying to be helpful. But you are a bit confused on how levitate works. You have to cast the spell on an item or a person. Levitate does not move "things" around as you claim. If you were to levitate a plate off a table it would require a second spell to levitate a glass of water off the same table.
| QUOTE |
| The fallacy of Rory's posts is that he's somehow gotten it into his head that not having to concentrate to sustain them = not having to concentrate to use them. Let's hope he clears himself up on that. |
I'm not sure if you understand me or not. I hope this will clear it up for you.
1) I could care less what the rules say or do not say. That is why we are discussing this issue. The rules need to be amended to clarify which side is correct.
2) Common sense tells you that if you are somehow able to go back and alter the spell after you bond it to a focus and this alteration demands some sort of mental effort to control there will be a TN penalty to additional actions attempted in the round. To highlight my point I wish to focus your attention on the fact that a mage could create multiple levitation spells and seemingly walk around with no effort to alter and modify the original spell parameters.
3) I say that once you cast a levitate spell you are able to alter it at will while you have it under direct control. But once you bond the spell to a focus you are no longer able to alter the spell. Nobody has shown me from any book where you are specifically able to alter a spell once it is sustained in a sustaining focus.
| QUOTE |
| A few things about Rory's Strawman post(s)... |
All of you can be rude if you wish. It doesn't make you correct.
| QUOTE |
| *Isn't the number of Foci a mage can use limited to Intelligence? |
Isn't it clear the point of my example is not how many foci a mage can use, but how complex it would be to control and alter a large number of sustained spells powered by foci?
| QUOTE |
| *Sustaining Foci can only hold spells cast on a person or object. Independant Illusions that interact with the environment would not qualify as such. |
Correct. That is why I said earlier to forget the illusions. You are attacking my example, but this has nothing to do with the point I am making, which makes it a waste of time.
| QUOTE |
| As was said by many people, absolutely nothing at all in canon backs up your assertion that a mage loses or turns over control of a spell when he chooses to sustain it with a Focus. |
And I am saying absolutely nothing in canon backs up your assertion that a mage can alter the spell once sustained in a focus. And certainly NOT without a penalty if at all.
| QUOTE |
| Poor team, all dead of asphyxiation, with grenades going off halfway between them and the ground... I mean... 5 seconds.. that's what final displacement when dropped of what? 60m, give or take? |
Ok we will drop bags of bird shit on you and ruin your smug attitude instead. What does this have to do with the debate?
| QUOTE |
| Shouldn't be that hard to keep a group of people moving in the same direction though. No harder then drawing lines with a fistful of pencils at least. |
You ever operated a radio controlled model airplane? Imagine trying to control 6 of them and coreograph and detailed flight pattern with them all. My point is it would take a lot of concentration to alter the levitation spell of multiple foci. I am not set in stone against allowing spell foci to somehow allow the mage to alter the spell once cast, but I am adamant that there would be penalties if this were the case. My example was supposed to highlight this. For this type of spell there needs to be a further explanation and clarification. I am trying to be helpful even while others are being childish and rude.
| QUOTE |
| If, however, you are reading those posts, then why are they not reasonable? There are explanations posted, if you do not accept them, then refute them. Otherwise, by virtue of NOT BEING DEBATED, they must be accepted as reasonable. |
I hope this post firms up my position?
| QUOTE |
| How can you be sure that your team-mates are out of gunshot range? How do you maneuver your team-mates? What skill is that? Please expend a complex action and roll your Small Unit Tactics Knowledge skill(perfectly canon) please. |
They have altimeters. They move straight overhead. There is no skill involved. And according to those who disagree with me there is no action or effort at all for me to alter 6 spells sustained in foci and control the positioning of the team levitating overhead. I assume I have to at least look at them? Not sure how I am reading my calculus book while doing that? Nobody on that side of the debate has an answer. Seems munchkinism is running rampant in the forum lately.
| QUOTE |
| Yes there is. The part that says the caster has control over the spell he casts. I mean come on, the book says the caster has control, in black and white. Sustaining foci don't say anything about changing that. |
There is nothing in the book that says you can alter a spell once it is sustained in a focus either. If you alter the direction the levitated object travels you have altered the spell. And you have used part of your mind to focus on the alteration, which should at the very minimum cause a TN penalty.
| QUOTE |
| This is a bit of a misleading statement. It never says you get to use the spell, it says it sustains the spell. That may seem like a bit of semantic bickering, but the implications for this discussion are important. |
Exactly. The focus sustains the spell, but if you no longer have to concentrate on it the spell will work even while you are sleeping. It is powered by the focus now. The focus is an inanimate object and can't alter the spell in any way. It only powers the spell placed in it. In the case of levitation the spell had to target an object or a person. The caster was able to alter the direction and speed of levitation while he was powering it, but once the spell was transferred to the focus no further alterations are allowed.
This makes much more sense if it works the way I say it does, because there is no penalties mentioned involved with sustaining foci. Nobody here will ever convince me there should be no penalties to alter a spell like this just because it is powered by a focus.
| QUOTE |
| A mage needs LOS to control what he is levitating. If he is looking at a calculus textbook he isn't looking at where his flying ballerinas are going. Therefore, they are just going to float in place. A mage can't just hand off levitate foci like he would invisibility foci. The spell has to be controlled as well as sustained and controlling it requires Line of Sight. That alone is limitation enough. |
Would they float in place? Or would they drop to the ground? Or, as I believe, would they only go in the direction that was set when the spell was sustained and then transferred to be powered by a focus?
| QUOTE |
| I don't believe you could just pick up and use that Sec-Mage's Force 1 Increase Reflexes 3 Sustaining Focus without first bonding it yourself. |
If you knew the rules half as good as you claim to, you would know that a focus has to be placed in physical contact with the target and once it is separated from that target the focus is deactivated and the spell ends.
| QUOTE |
| That's the real point. It makes no difference whether the mage is sustaining the spell himself, or using a Focus. The spell still acts in the manner that the mage desires. |
Yes, it certainly will. And once it is set in the manner the mage desired and powered by a focus it can't be altered in any way from then on. You set the speed and direction of your levitation and that is it, no more concentrating on it at all.
| QUOTE |
| This is because, although the focus is maintaining the spell, the spell description gives the caster control over the spell's effects. |
You are changing the spell if you allow the caster to change the effects from the point the spell was powered by a focus. This seems to be at odds with the rest of your post that states no changes can be made to the spell once cast and sustained in the focus.
| QUOTE |
| The quote says the spell lets the caster move things about. That's pretty clear about who controls the movement, to my mind. |
No, it does not allow you to move "things" about. It allows you to move one thing. And while the mage is sustaining the spell he is free to alter the spell in any way he wants. He even has a TN penalty to sustain the spell. But once the spell is placed in a focus, it can no longer be altered is my argument. Armor spells work perfectly for this, but levitation spells require further alteration of the spell and concentration by the caster. There would be a penalty for this if it were allowed.
Return to my post which included a discussion on whether controlling a spell required changing the spell.
If you can't remember, the relevant section is:
If you can't remember, the relevant section is:
| QUOTE |
| Now, for spells that are not just on/off.. Do different tasks require variations of the spell? Does going 'forward' with levitate require the spell to change it's shape? Does going up or down? Since there are not multiple spells, the answer is obviously 'no'. So changing the spell's shape isn't necessairy. |
Now, please stop and consider it. Changing the spell is NOT required to change directions of motion.
Now.. your attempt to refute my claim that the control of the spell is still within the caster's aura...
Prove that it is not, using logic. The focus is within the aura. The spell is within the focus. Perhaps a diagram?
( aura ( focus ( spell ) )
And, as a point of reference: The tasks to move someone/something with levitate are purely mental. There is no waving of arms, motion of fingers. In short, nothing physical, which is where a large amount of the difficulty of multiple tasks comes in.
Now.. as for your comment about dropping bird shit ... How is proving that your idea is hardly a serious threat off topic? You are insisting that something is gamebreaking, I disproved your example.
Moving right along.. you disagree with a logically drawn conclusion (not explicitly stated by canon, hence, inference, but logically drawn from canon), without giving any validation for why you find it to be a false conclusion.
Edit: Just to make things easier for people who don't want to go back through to read the entire thing I'd written up about sustaining focii -- 'shape of the spell' and such in the quoted section, just refers to the actual spell itself, and that a different 'shape' is a different spell.
Editted again, I must be more tired then I think... the section beginning with 'Moving right along' refers to the 'no refuting of the argument must by necessity mean that the argument is valid and acceptable'... and is an explanation for why it still hasn't been refuted. Hopefully this is the last missing thing I wrote.
| QUOTE (Rory Blackhand) |
| Nothing posted so far has proven me wrong. |
And nothing you have posted has been proof that you are right. As you say though, you don't care what the actual rules state, so this discussion has come down to how you would rule it regardless of what is or isn't canon.
| QUOTE |
| All of you can be rude if you wish. |
I wasn't being either rude or insulting. I was addressing your points, which in literary terms are correctly described as Strawman arguments.
Besides, I am amazed that you don't think you are being rude and insulting by, among other things, calling everyone that disagrees with you a munchkin and/or rules-lawyer?
| QUOTE |
| It doesn't make you correct. |
Nor does it make you correct.
| QUOTE | ||
If you knew the rules half as good as you claim to, you would know that a focus has to be placed in physical contact with the target and once it is separated from that target the focus is deactivated and the spell ends. |
If you look at the context that this particular post of mine was made, you'd see that nowhere did I state that the spell would still be active. The post was in reference to the question of whether a person could pick up and use a fallen opponent's Focus without rebonding it. Even if it didn't need to be rebonded, the appropriate spell would have to be cast again for it to work. I never even implied anything different.
You chose to totally take that comment out of context, and make a personal attack based solely on Sweet FA.
I can't resist responding, but I will resist itemizing and considering the entire post, because I'm sure others will be able to do it much better than I.
| QUOTE |
| Yes, I was in a hurry, but no, you do not need to organize my thoughts. |
For my own sake, yes I did. You were making little sense, so I tried to make the most of what you gave me, kid. I'm fairly certain I did a respectable job.
| QUOTE |
| You must be joking right? As if I give a damn about this debate enough to edit my post? Don't flatter yourself, kid. Honestly, you are not that important to me. |
I hate to have to point this out, but your statements make me think you do actually give a damn. Behaviour like that, such as making outrageous or vicious statements and then later editing them out to make one appear more rational than one is to the latecoming reader, has been known to happen before. So don't think I was singling you out or anything, kid. I woulda done that for anyone who said what you did.
As to the Gauntlet thing, that is precisely what you did, Rory, you tossed a big 'ol gauntlet. You claimed you would show us that we're 'wrong', in what way is that not a challenge?
| QUOTE |
| Canon, statements and rules lawyering do not concern me. |
This is why you can't prove us wrong, kid, and why you're more than likely to be ignored, dissected or ridiculed for this. I'm hoping you'll get off easy, but life isn't always fair.
| QUOTE |
| Levitate does not move "things" around as you claim. |
This is painful, kid. Levitate does move 'things' around, the 'things' it is cast on. Don't be asinine.
| QUOTE |
| I'm not sure if you understand me or not. I hope this will clear it up for you. 1) I could care less what the rules say or do not say. That is why we are discussing this issue. The rules need to be amended to clarify which side is correct. 2) Common sense tells you that if you are somehow able to go back and alter the spell after you bond it to a focus and this alteration demands some sort of mental effort to control there will be a TN penalty to additional actions attempted in the round. To highlight my point I wish to focus your attention on the fact that a mage could create multiple levitation spells and seemingly walk around with no effort to alter and modify the original spell parameters. 3) I say that once you cast a levitate spell you are able to alter it at will while you have it under direct control. But once you bond the spell to a focus you are no longer able to alter the spell. Nobody has shown me from any book where you are specifically able to alter a spell once it is sustained in a sustaining focus. |
Apologies to all for the big quote.
1) see above, re: why you won't prove us wrong. You're just asking for trouble, kid. Sorry, but you are. We're discussing the rules in canon. If you could care less about what the rules say or do not say, don't join in the discussion, as it is not for you.
2) Common sense tells you jack about what you can and cannot do with magic. Common sense tells you you cannot throw fireballs from your hands, so who knows what types of common sense rules affect magic? All we've got to go on are the ones we're given in the books, but as you've already stated, you don't care about the rules. I'd like to draw your attention to a previously posted example, like the chewing gum one, or my own 'levitate spell go up' bit. The concentration required to alter the spell (if indeed you can at all, which is the aim of the discussion) is minimal at best, unless you're attempting the strawman ballet or similar effect. And as for a mage walking around with a bunch of sustaining foci active with 'effort to alter and modify the original spell parameters'... I think your thoughts need some organising again, kid.
3) yeah, that would be the whole question under debate, now wouldn't it? Literally, you have no support for your position either. Since you don't care about canon, I'm sure that doesn't bother you, but it does mean you have no way to prove us 'wrong'. Try to keep up with things, kid, at the very least it's easier to build your strawmen when you know what's going on.
Let me clarify what I'm saying here, kid. You are making a strawman fallacy. That is, while the real discussion is whether or not a sustained spell can be used like it says in the spell description, or can only be turned on/off with a single perameter; you decided that you were going to attack having multiple sustaining foci active and performing intricate ballet with the floating objects. That is a strawman fallacy.
Now, about that 'proving us wrong' thing you said you were going to do... When can we see it?
| QUOTE (Rory Blackhand @ Mar 14 2005, 10:28 PM) | ||
Burn me if you are able. My position has logic, yours has mostly rules lawyering and munchkinism. |
I apolegize for talking over your head, since you obviously have no idea what a strawman is. Nonetheless, that is pretty much the only thing you have offered us.
As for the rest of your post, how do you qualify your overly copius exposition as any more logical, and any less "rules lawyering" than what we've been doing? I also challenge you to try and prove that anything said in opposition to you has in any way been "munchkinism."
Since really, it's getting hard to tell what you think you're argueing anymore, I'm going to restate the base arguement of sustaining levitation, and to elimanate the strawmen, it's one focus, with one spell on it (so shock and surprise, just like most of the other posts in this topic, it will be a position well supported by logic).
The description for Levitation in SR3 states: 'The target of the spell can be moved anywhere in the caster's line of sight at a rate of speed equal too [etc].' At no point in there, or anywhere else in the description is it even vaguely inferred that when sustained, or locked on a sustaining focus, the direction of the Levitation is locked in a straight line along the last specified axis. Logicaly the spell should be able to keep on moving in whatever direction the mage tells it.
| QUOTE |
| Now, please stop and consider it. Changing the spell is NOT required to change directions of motion. |
If the spell is powered by a focus it does. Once you place a spell in a focus it can't be altered in any way. This includes changing direction. If that is not canon, it should be, just using common sense.
| QUOTE |
| Prove that it is not, using logic. The focus is within the aura. The spell is within the focus. Perhaps a diagram? |
Sure. A car is made up of many parts. Once you place tires on the car, you can't inflate them to a higher psi without stopping and physically doing that. Same as placing your spell in the foci. It is set to a certain parameter. Once it is set that is it. You need to recast it if you want to alter it.
| QUOTE |
| And, as a point of reference: The tasks to move someone/something with levitate are purely mental. There is no waving of arms, motion of fingers. In short, nothing physical, which is where a large amount of the difficulty of multiple tasks comes in. |
This is completely baseless. So can you compose orchestra music, solve mathematical problems, memorize a speech, and three other tasks in your mind? A large amount, no...the entire amount of difficulty of multiple tasks is that your brain is only able to focus on just so much at once. I can jog a mile and flip you off while waving for your attention just fine. It is the mental tasks that are impossible to multi task.
| QUOTE |
| You are insisting that something is gamebreaking, I disproved your example. |
You have disproved nothing.
| QUOTE |
| Moving right along.. you disagree with a logically drawn conclusion (not explicitly stated by canon, hence, inference, but logically drawn from canon), without giving any validation for why you find it to be a false conclusion. |
The problem is you have not stated anything logical. Nor have you explained how you can multi task without penalties assuming the spell can be altered once placed in a focus.
| QUOTE |
| And nothing you have posted has been proof that you are right. As you say though, you don't care what the actual rules state, so this discussion has come down to how you would rule it regardless of what is or isn't canon. |
If the rules favor being able to levitate 6 different people in multiple directions without a penalty, then you are correct. I do not care what they say. You still miss the point that we are here to discuss the way it should be. I thought we were working together on this, until the insults started flying. The bottom line is I do care what is canon though or I would not be voicing my opinion.
| QUOTE |
| I wasn't being either rude or insulting. I was addressing your points, which in literary terms are correctly described as Strawman arguments. |
You were being rude. I would never tell someone his points in a debate were like strawmen unless I intended to be rude to the person. I find that when others do this to me it is because they can't find a way to assail my position with facts. If I refer to your points as stupid ideas it is the same thing. Straw men easily defeated, stupid ideas easily defeated. There is no difference.
| QUOTE |
| Besides, I am amazed that you don't think you are being rude and insulting by, among other things, calling everyone that disagrees with you a munchkin and/or rules-lawyer? |
I don't call everyone who disagrees with me a munchkin or a rules lawyer. Just the ones that say it is ok to juggle 6 people with 6 sustaining focuses without a single penalty to other tasks. But anyone wishing to have their cake and levitate too is pushing for munchkinism and abuse by someone much more clever than I.
| QUOTE |
| You chose to totally take that comment out of context, and make a personal attack based solely on Sweet FA. |
You are correct. It was meant as a personal attack in response to your strawman comment. I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of. You are adamant that you are correct about this issue, yet you didn't know the rules on deactivating foci.
It is simple. Either a mage can alter the levitation type spell once it is powered by a focus, in which case it only make sense that he will get a TN penalty to other tasks while he manuevers. Or the levitate type spell can't be altered once the parameters are set. Those are the simple choices. I can work with either. My opinion is the latter. I have stated the reasons why above.
I'm going to address three of your points in reverse order, as they're a bit more logical to do that way. I conveniently ignored most of the personal attacks and responses to personal attacks; hope you don't mind.
| QUOTE (Rory Blackhand) |
| 3) I say that once you cast a levitate spell you are able to alter it at will while you have it under direct control. But once you bond the spell to a focus you are no longer able to alter the spell. Nobody has shown me from any book where you are specifically able to alter a spell once it is sustained in a sustaining focus. |
Ah-ha! Here's your problem! You see, you are making a false assumption here: namely that sustaining the spell equates to having "control" to "alter" the spell. The trick here is that you cannot in fact "alter" anything about a spell once it's been cast; that would be a horrifyingly munchkin-tastic thing to do. Being able to "alter" a spell would mean being able to change the Force of the spell on-the-fly, or something equally ridiculous, which is plainly out of the Sorcery skill. Noone can "control" a spell; there is nothing in canon that would ever give you an ability to do so.
The only thing you can *occasionally* do is use the abilities granted by the spell in different ways. Note that this has nothing to do with "controlling" the spell itself; the spell exists merely to give you the ability to do something. As an analogy, look at your right arm. You can't "control" the existence of your right arm, to "alter" it in any way: you have four fingers and a thumb, etc. You *can* however manipulate the arm to do various tasks, like write out long witty responses to other members of this forum. It doesn't matter if that arm is being supported by your own two feet or if you're comfortably lying down and typing from your bed, letting your bed support the arm for you; the essential properties of the arm are unchanged. This isn't a particularly good analogy, but it's one that applies for spells.
The only thing you can *occasionally* do is use the abilities granted by the spell in different ways. Note that this has nothing to do with "controlling" the spell itself; the spell exists merely to give you the ability to do something. As an analogy, look at your right arm. You can't "control" the existence of your right arm, to "alter" it in any way: you have four fingers and a thumb, etc. You *can* however manipulate the arm to do various tasks, like write out long witty responses to other members of this forum. It doesn't matter if that arm is being supported by your own two feet or if you're comfortably lying down and typing from your bed, letting your bed support the arm for you; the essential properties of the arm are unchanged. This isn't a particularly good analogy, but it's one that applies for spells.
| QUOTE (Rory Blackhand) |
| 2) Common sense tells you that if you are somehow able to go back and alter the spell after you bond it to a focus and this alteration demands some sort of mental effort to control there will be a TN penalty to additional actions attempted in the round. To highlight my point I wish to focus your attention on the fact that a mage could create multiple levitation spells and seemingly walk around with no effort to alter and modify the original spell parameters. |
Again, you seem to be making the false assumption that maintaining whatever mana weave/matrix/pattern that gives the spell existence has anything to do with control over the abilities granted by the spell. In *our* game world--you know, the one that exists in the books and abides by the canon rules, rather than the one that exists only in your mind and throws out the rules whenever they contradict you--these have no clear and necessary relationship, and there's no reason they should.
Sometimes the ability to control the spell's granted abilities isn't even given to the caster himself; in the case of Clairvoyance for instance (as well as most other Detection spells) control over the abilities granted by the spell are given to the *target* of the spell, the same one granted the abilities in the first place. In these cases the caster is not exerting any "mental control" over the spell at all, and so according to your argument he would not be receiving a +2 modifier to anything. In fact, according to your argument it would be the *target* of the Clairvoyance spell that would be receiving the +2 TN modifier, as he is the one exerting "mental control over the spell" and "modifying the original spell parameters," which would allow the mage to cast and maintain a thousand Claorvoyance spells over the entire population of Seattle and still study quantum physics in his spare time.
Sometimes the ability to control the spell's granted abilities isn't even given to the caster himself; in the case of Clairvoyance for instance (as well as most other Detection spells) control over the abilities granted by the spell are given to the *target* of the spell, the same one granted the abilities in the first place. In these cases the caster is not exerting any "mental control" over the spell at all, and so according to your argument he would not be receiving a +2 modifier to anything. In fact, according to your argument it would be the *target* of the Clairvoyance spell that would be receiving the +2 TN modifier, as he is the one exerting "mental control over the spell" and "modifying the original spell parameters," which would allow the mage to cast and maintain a thousand Claorvoyance spells over the entire population of Seattle and still study quantum physics in his spare time.
| QUOTE (Rory Blackhand) |
| 1) I could care less what the rules say or do not say. That is why we are discussing this issue. The rules need to be amended to clarify which side is correct. |
Not only the rules, but the flavor text surrounding the rules are pretty damn clear that not only are you wrong, but your argument makes no sense, as others and I have attested. You are making two logical errors: one is making the false assumption that the mental strain required to alter the parameters of the abilities granted by the spell, and the other is assuming that just because your position is wrong that the world should bend over backwards just to make you right. Well sorry, but the world just doesn't work that way. Controlling abilities given by spells is, according to the rulebooks, apparently just as automatic as moving your feet, breathing, blinking, telling your heart to beat, telling your glands to produce hormones, and focusing your eyes, all of which you do automatically without even thinking about it very hard. Just accept that the brain is a complicated instrument and is more than capable of doing several things at the same time.
Since Canon does not state that the caster of Levitate suffers from any TN penalties while using it, he does not suffer TN penalties. The sustaining focus only takes over the sustaining of the spell, the caster still is able to move or lift things as per effect of Levitate.
If he is simply moving something, he suffers no penalty. If he is doing other more complex things, it becomes a use of a skill and that takes a Complex Action.
If he is simply moving something, he suffers no penalty. If he is doing other more complex things, it becomes a use of a skill and that takes a Complex Action.
| QUOTE (Rory Blackhand @ Mar 14 2005, 11:42 PM) | ||
I don't call everyone who disagrees with me a munchkin or a rules lawyer. Just the ones that say it is ok to juggle 6 people with 6 sustaining focuses without a single penalty to other tasks. But anyone wishing to have their cake and levitate too is pushing for munchkinism and abuse by someone much more clever than I. |
I'll make this simple for you: name one person who has said it's okay to juggle 6 people with six sustaining focuses without a single penalty. Take as much time as you want.
| QUOTE |
| It is simple. Either a mage can alter the levitation type spell once it is powered by a focus, in which case it only make sense that he will get a TN penalty to other tasks while he manuevers. Or the levitate type spell can't be altered once the parameters are set. Those are the simple choices. I can work with either.*snip* |
Except this whole thread has made it quite obvious that you can't.
*edit*
And once more, the book ninja has beat us to the actual point. Next time, Gadget, NEXT TIME!
| QUOTE (Rory Blackhand) |
| You are correct. It was meant as a personal attack in response to your strawman comment. I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of. You are adamant that you are correct about this issue, yet you didn't know the rules on deactivating foci. |
I am fully aware of the rules for deactivating Foci. Those rules are not even remotely related to either the question or my answer though. The question, in case you missed it in the midst of your ranting, was whether a character could pick up and use a Focus of a downed Security Mage without rebonding it. No mention was made about whether the associated spell would have to be recast or not, because we all know that the spell would, in fact, have to be recast in either case. Once again you are making shit up in a vain attempt to slander my rules knowledge, and obscure the point of the discussion. I have never once claimed (unlike others here) to be all-knowledgeable as ar as the rules are concerned, although I do claim to have a fairly strong grasp on most of what is and isn't canon.
As to my being 'adament' about being right on the thread's topic, where do you get that? I have merely stated that there is nothing in canon that states that a mage is no longer able to control the effects of a spell when it is put into a Sustaining Focus. In this I am correct, because there is nothing in canon about it. If a mage does indeed lose control of the spell's effects, then one would logically think it would be included somewhere in the rules that this happens.
And whether you think it is rude to point out fallacies in arguments or not is immaterial to me, just as my opinion (as well as that of most of the other posters here) is immaterial to you.
| QUOTE | ||
If the spell is powered by a focus it does. Once you place a spell in a focus it can't be altered in any way. This includes changing direction. If that is not canon, it should be, just using common sense. |
I believe I have sufficiently proven that changing a direction is not changing the spell. The spell is levitate, there have been plenty of copies of the spell posted. Perhaps another will allow you to understand what it is said? I'll put a translation after to help.
| QUOTE |
| Levitate allows the caster to telekinetically lift an object and move it around. The subject of the spell can be moved anywhere in the caster's line of sight at a rate of speed equal to the caster's Magic Attribute multiplied by the number of successes (up to a maximum equal to the spell's Force) from the Sorcery Test in meters per turn. |
Translated:
| QUOTE |
| Levitate gives the person who casts the spell the ability to move whatever or whoever he casts it on around, as much as he wants, as long as he can see it. It moves at any speed from 0 up to his magic times the number of successes he got casting it, up to a maximum of magic attribute times force |
Please indicate where this makes any reference to the sustaining of the spell?
| QUOTE | ||
Sure. A car is made up of many parts. Once you place tires on the car, you can't inflate them to a higher psi without stopping and physically doing that. Same as placing your spell in the foci. It is set to a certain parameter. Once it is set that is it. You need to recast it if you want to alter it. |
What parameters are set when casting a sustained levitate spell into a focus?
Just the target. The caster gets to move it around how he wants to. That's the spell description. He has to make the object move, it doesn't move on its own when he casts the spell.
For your car analogy to be valid, then the spell would have to be fundamentally different and require recasting to change directions, even without a sustaining focus. Quite simply, making the direction a part of the car is making the requirement for spells 'levitate up', 'levitate left' 'levitate right' 'levitate forward' 'levitate backward' etc.
A correct car analogy would be:
A spell the caster is sustaining: A car without cruise control. Sustaining the spell is roughly equivalent to keeping your foot at the correct spot on the gas. Moving the target is steering.
A spell a focus is sustaining: Cruise control. You still have to steer, but you don't need to control the velocity.
| QUOTE | ||
This is completely baseless. So can you compose orchestra music, solve mathematical problems, memorize a speech, and three other tasks in your mind? A large amount, no...the entire amount of difficulty of multiple tasks is that your brain is only able to focus on just so much at once. I can jog a mile and flip you off while waving for your attention just fine. It is the mental tasks that are impossible to multi task. |
It is the physical limitations which make tasks impossible. It is comparatively simple to do multiple things in your head at once.
Likewise -- how is picturing how you want a few things floating to move even remotely comparable to to composing an orchestra or writing a speech?
| QUOTE | ||
You have disproved nothing. |
No, I gave valid reasons why it's impossible to levitate such that you can drop grenades and be safe from ground firearms. You presented it as a reason why sustaining focii with levitate spells is gamebreaking.
Now, I am going to reiterate something that's been argued before, that you have not touched on.
P1: Sustaining and using an armour spell gives a +2 TN.
P2: Sustaining and using a levitate spell gives a +2 TN.
P3: If a task is more complicated, then it applies a higher modifier to the TN.
P4: Sustaining and using a levitate spell does NOT have a higher modifier to the TN.
Conclusion: Using and sustaining a levitate spell is NOT more complicated then sustaining an armour spell, by the Logical Form 'Denying the anticedent' or, 'Motis Tolens' if I'm remembering my latin correctly.. it's been a while since I had to use the latin for the form.
Extrapolation based upon this conclusion: Either sustaining a levitate spell is easier than sustaining an armour spell (+1), and the other +1 to the TN is from moving the person, which makes no sense by canon, OR moving someone/something with a levitate spell is a trivial task.
What this means, is that there is NO valid reason for why you should have TN mods for moving someone around with a sustaining focus. There has been plenty of evidence given for why you should be able to change the direction the person under the spell is moving, so I won't spend the time writing out the argument for you.
| QUOTE |
| For my own sake, yes I did. You were making little sense, so I tried to make the most of what you gave me, kid. I'm fairly certain I did a respectable job. |
I'm sure opinions will vary, kid.
| QUOTE |
| I hate to have to point this out, but your statements make me think you do actually give a damn. |
I do give a damn about the outcome of the ruling if it gets added to errata, but I don't give a damn about you or whether you want to play forum Gestapo or not, smart boy.
| QUOTE |
| Behaviour like that, such as making outrageous or vicious statements and then later editing them out to make one appear more rational than one is to the latecoming reader, has been known to happen before. |
You think it was an outrageous statement to say I would show you wrong? Don't flatter yourself, kid. You are letting your ego get the best of you and it is showing in print. I am unimpressed so far.
| QUOTE |
| So don't think I was singling you out or anything, kid. I woulda done that for anyone who said what you did. |
You need to get a life then, if all you can do is save posts from editing so you can cry foul and finger point later. I mean who really gives a damn? I'm here to get a ruling straight, not to bicker back and forth with some pimple faced kid that thinks he is all that.
| QUOTE |
| This is why you can't prove us wrong, kid, and why you're more than likely to be ignored, dissected or ridiculed for this. I'm hoping you'll get off easy, but life isn't always fair. |
you've been posting here what a whole 28 days and you are concerned with me getting ridiculed and let off easy? What have you been smoking, boy? You act like this is going to crush me if I step on anyone's toes or get proved wrong. Don't make me laugh, and please try to do something positive with your life other than picking fights with guys old enough to be your grand father.
| QUOTE |
| This is painful, kid. Levitate does move 'things' around, the 'things' it is cast on. Don't be asinine. |
Right, don't be asinine, kid. You get to move one item. You said things, as in plural items. Read the spell, smart boy. You have to cast on a target...as in singular target. And you do not get to change targets once the spell is cast.
| QUOTE |
| Common sense tells you jack about what you can and cannot do with magic. |
That is one of the lamest arguments I have ever heard. And mine are straw men? OK.
| QUOTE |
| The concentration required to alter the spell (if indeed you can at all, which is the aim of the discussion) is minimal at best, unless you're attempting the strawman ballet or similar effect. |
BS. It is not minimal to alter a sustained spell like levitation. Let alone 6 of them.
| QUOTE |
| I think your thoughts need some organising again, kid. |
I'm perfectly at ease with what I have stated. You are all over the map. I'd check my notes, school boy.
| QUOTE |
| Literally, you have no support for your position either. Since you don't care about canon |
Actually I thought I made it clear I do care about canon and I think canon supports my argument better than yours. I don't agree with everything canon though. Sheeeeeep.
| QUOTE |
| Now, about that 'proving us wrong' thing you said you were going to do... When can we see it? |
Some people refuse to believe shit stinks until they get their noses rubbed in it.
| QUOTE |
| I apolegize for talking over your head, since you obviously have no idea what a strawman is. Nonetheless, that is pretty much the only thing you have offered us. |
Oh, I've seen some strawmen arguments posted but they weren't mine.
| QUOTE |
| I also challenge you to try and prove that anything said in opposition to you has in any way been "munchkinism." |
You fear the label of munchkin, yet want to be ale to levitate 6 objects with no TN penalties. Need I look further for evidence?
| QUOTE |
| it's one focus, with one spell on it (so shock and surprise, just like most of the other posts in this topic, it will be a position well supported by logic). |
In order to be supported by logic it must work in all situations as mine does. Yours leaves a munchkin in place levitating 6 objects while eating pizza and solving crossword puzzles. I'd say your logic has no base or support at all.
| QUOTE |
| At no point in there, or anywhere else in the description is it even vaguely inferred that when sustained, or locked on a sustaining focus, the direction of the Levitation is locked in a straight line along the last specified axis. Logicaly the spell should be able to keep on moving in whatever direction the mage tells it. |
I've never refuted that while sustained by the mage the spell couldn't be altered as desired because he is concentrating on the spell and the mana. But once the mage stops concentrating on the spell and places it in a focus the spell in my opinion would be set to the last command. This is why certain sustainable spells should not be allowed to be placed in foci. And my whole point is that IF they are, there should be a TN penalty representing the distraction of changing the spell parameters.
| QUOTE |
| Since Canon does not state that the caster of Levitate suffers from any TN penalties while using it, he does not suffer TN penalties. The sustaining focus only takes over the sustaining of the spell, the caster still is able to move or lift things as per effect of Levitate. |
I'll argue that it shuld incur an additional +1 TN.
| QUOTE |
| If he is simply moving something, he suffers no penalty. If he is doing other more complex things, it becomes a use of a skill and that takes a Complex Action. |
That works great for 1 focus. Now explain 6. In 6 different directions and speeds and elevations of course. I refuse to believe there is no TN penalty.
| QUOTE (Rory Blackhand) |
| Some people refuse to believe shit stinks until they get their noses rubbed in it. |
At least you're honest enough to admit your own failings.
[ Spoiler ]
| QUOTE |
| Once again you are making shit up in a vain attempt to slander my rules knowledge |
You put the question marks when you asked the question. I make no assumptions.
| QUOTE |
| I have merely stated that there is nothing in canon that states that a mage is no longer able to control the effects of a spell when it is put into a Sustaining Focus. In this I am correct, because there is nothing in canon about it. |
And I fully agree, which is why I m here hoping something will be added. I hope you are here for that reason as well? Others seem to be in some weird war of words with me and have lost track of the topic.
| QUOTE |
| If a mage does indeed lose control of the spell's effects, then one would logically think it would be included somewhere in the rules that this happens. |
It' s only logical if you "assume" the game designers are infallible, which I do not. I think they may have overlooked the ramifications and possible abuse of spells like levitation. Nobody has yet been able to solidly face up to the 6 foci situation I have presented. In order for it to be playable it should be covered under all situations. This has not bee naddressed.
| QUOTE |
| And whether you think it is rude to point out fallacies in arguments or not is immaterial to me, just as my opinion (as well as that of most of the other posters here) is immaterial to you. |
Actually I do value your opinion, Fortune, or I wouldn't be posting. I am trying to help. I won't react well to insults though. Anyone responding to me with civility will receive the same in turn.
| QUOTE (Rory Blackhand @ Mar 15 2005, 04:45 PM) |
| You put the question marks when you asked the question. I make no assumptions. |
I'm not sure I follow your logic here. I did not ask the question in the first place. In fact, I'll repost the entire exchange between Sandoval Smith and myself concerning the 'acquired' Focus ...
| QUOTE (Fortune) | ||
It really wouldn't matter, because when you pay the Karma to bond the Focus, you set the specific spell it can sustain. I don't believe you could just pick up and use that Sec-Mage's Force 1 Increase Reflexes 3 Sustaining Focus without first bonding it yourself. |
You see that there is no inference on either person's part that the spell would still be active. The question was about the Focus itself, and the spell to which it had previously been attuned.
| QUOTE |
| I believe I have sufficiently proven that changing a direction is not changing the spell. |
No, you haven't actually. This is a unique kind of spell that requires concentration on the part of the caster for it to operate correctly, unlike an armor spell for instance. Once you place it into a focus the spell is set. Nothing in canon says you can change the spell once it is placed in a focus.
| QUOTE |
| Please indicate where this makes any reference to the sustaining of the spell? |
The reference was in the spell header with the big "S" for sustained.
| QUOTE |
| What parameters are set when casting a sustained levitate spell into a focus? |
Speed and direction of the item levitated.
| QUOTE |
| The caster gets to move it around how he wants to. |
As long as he concentrates on it, yes. The minute he stops the spell drops.
| QUOTE |
| A correct car analogy would be: A spell the caster is sustaining: A car without cruise control. Sustaining the spell is roughly equivalent to keeping your foot at the correct spot on the gas. Moving the target is steering. A spell a focus is sustaining: Cruise control. You still have to steer, but you don't need to control the velocity. |
Since you agree the car analogy works, then imagine having 5 other cars following behind you trying to stay on the road that you are controlling with remote control devices. Now imagine you have to do something as simple as take a piss. Do you think it would be easy to control all that as your side of the debate claims? if you can't create a working ruling that holds up to munchkinism then it needs fixing. All I am saying is do not allow spells to be sustained that need concentration to keep them going, or penalize them with TN penalties. Can you at least address this?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.