After the Levitation spell in a sustaining focus debacle, I'm wondering about peoples thoughts on casting Trid Phantasm and using a focus to sustain it.

According to the way that thread went, a magician should be able to cast this (hopefully at high force and in the comfort of his own home where he has time to recover from any drain) and use a sustaining focus to avoid any sustaining penalty. Casting it at leasure would avoid the hazards of wound modifiers from the (+1)D drain if cast during a run.

The benefit would be any trid phantasm illusion the magician desires virtually any time with no TN penalties to any other actions. A very quick look discovered no penalties for moving or changing the illusion, but somewhere in my memory is it taking some kind of action to do either. Maybe that was a house rule, though.

Most of my charactewrs avoided this spell because of the high drain, but being able to use a sustaining focus makes it too sweet to ignore.

Yeah, and you can create detailed sceneries covering vast swathes of land that interacts changes and does all kind of things with no thought at all with multiple munchkin foci...made of straw of course. Because there is obviously no more thought involved in creating casting and directing a trid quality production or two or three or four simultaneously than chewing bubble gum and walking. Anyone with the intelligence required to cast magic must by default be able to subdivide his brain into detailing these illusions all he wishes with no more effort than....well...with no effort. Common sense tells us that. Why did you bring this up, tizoz? To poke fun at a loser like me? I like comedy, can you create an illusion of the 10 year old mage who levitated his friends around at school while studying for tests and arguing pointless drivel on the matrix?

The points are the same, Tisoz.
Either you assume that the spell gives you the ability to generate the illusion, and that controlling the illusion does not require concentration per se, or you assume that once the illusion is cast into the sustaining focus, the spell parameters are fixed.

The canon rules don't help at all in determining which is the case - unless I'm misremembering the text of the Trid Phantasm spell:
If the text reads something like - "this spell gives the caster the ability to create an illusion...." or whatever, then the meaning is essentially the same as for levitate - pick your interpretation of the rule, and there you are.
If the text reads " this spell creates an illusion", then the creation of the illusion would seem to be a part of casting the spell - ie the illusion is set when you cast the spell. That doesn't mean, necessarily, that you couldn't change the parameters of the illusion - movement, position, sounds, etc, but you probably couldn't change the nature of the illusion itself.

To clarify: the second kind of text, or similar, would imply (to me) that you can create an illusion of Bob the Builder and put it in a sustaining focus. After that, you can make Bob move, and talk, and sing...but you can't change the essential contents of the illusion - if Bob didn't have a tractor when you first cast the spell, you can't add one later...and so on.
[Edit]To clarify further: that's an interpretation. YMMV[/edit]

@Rory: Chill out, man. You're not the centre of the universe. Just because Tisoz has a question that has to do with a discussion you were involved in doesn't mean he's out to get at you. And you're still using Straw Men.

Rory: My someone is bitter.

However, you cannot sustain Trid Phantasm in a focus, as it is not cast on a physical object or being (as it is an area effect spell), which means nothing for the sustaining focus to be in contact with when cast.

So, no such issues arise.

I was unaware that the "target" of a spell affected whether or not it could be sustained by a sustaining focus...

Yes.
At work. No SR books.
Thanks for checking.

Redundant post.

Are you still stuck up on that? Would a hostily phrased letter signed by each and every Shadowrun developer get you to stop whining about the rules not being what you want them to be? Or are you just on a crusade to oppose the one source (namely, the rule books) that can be used as a basis for Shadowrun discussion?

Actually, Dumpshock should host a club for people who hate different aspects of the rules. Austere, or whoever that was with the complete combat rewrite (sorry Austere if it wasn't you), can make essays about why his is better. Rory can write up a few essays about why magic needs to follow his additional rules, and everyone else with a gripe can add theirs. To keep the opinions purely anti-canon, there would have to be some administrator who removes every post supporting what's in the books, any volunteers for that job?

You are doing just fine. Since nothing I said was out of canon or adding any extra rules your whole blathering diatribe was meaningless.

Asking someone, "what do you think you are, an a-hole?" is a question, just a rude one. I was essentially told that I was wrong about something that I was never proved to be wrong on. I was told in a way that I should shut my mouth about it. I was told I was a whiner. I was told I was a misguided crusader. I was told I opposed the game designers, as if they support that poster's munchkin interpretation of rules over mine. In no uncertain terms this poster made a lame attempt to belittle me verbally. In other words, he picked a fight with me, and I am easily provoked, so he got one. If you don't like it, tough luck for you.

Actually I would say you were the one that picked a fight Rory, what with the whole "I'd rather use Straw Men than be a sheep" thing.

Because you know, the rules are The Man, and you can never obey The Man can you now?

That is your opinion and I respect it.

I feel that the fight was started by Demosthenes when he called me out by name though.

My post to tizoz was poking fun at the whole thing. I think he and I see eye to eye on the issue and I don't need advice on what to say or not say. Being ordered to chill out or hearing little quips about being bitter usually have the opposite effect on me, as you can well see. I have a free will and our American fathers and brothers have fought to see to it that I have the utmost chance to exercise it's use. In fact, I'd say not many enjoy hearing condesending advice from posters trying to sound smug or superior.

As far as being a rebel or fighting authority, or being a hippie? You are correct I have long hair, but I am as hawkish as they come in politics and in person.

I am comfortable with the fact that the game designers are capable of error and lack foresight. There is no shame in their efforts to date considering the staggering task of printing a user friendly system to mimic all of life albeit in a fantasy setting. No, I have high praises for what they have created. And there is never any harm in constant questioning, testing, and amending rules.

My gentle suggestion is to try being helpful on the actual rules and game concepts instead of calling people's names in strife. Badgering is counterproductive.

1) Sorry, if I wanted to drag up the other thread, I could have. I was wondering about the implications for other spells if the precedent (for me) from the levitate thread was applied to other spells.

From the levitate thread: the analogy of the sustaining focus to having a car driving along on cruise control. A better car analogy would be a limitless supply of fuel and automatic maintenance, because speed can be adjustede as well as direction.

One reason I don't care for the precedent is the increase of power it gives magicians. To me it is like letting a rigger in captains chair mode control every drone on his subscriber list as though he were in the drone. I also think this is a good analogy for the total control of spells while using a sustaining focus.

2) Rory, I got what you were saying in the other thread and do agree with it. Problem was, you were saying logic and logically when you should have probably just said makes sense to me.

I can kind of see not having a TN modifier to drain when using the sustaining focus, but if you (can)/care to affect the spell it should result in a TN modifier or take an action.

3) I don't see why Trid Phantasm can not be sustained. Example - cast it on human target, make him look how you like, have him wear the sustaining focus. Then the spell is cast, it is being sustained, and it should be able to be moved and adjusted just as though the caster were not using the focus.

Yeehaw! It's another rousing round of 'Rory and his burning hate for sustaining foci.' Everyone, sing along!

This is the thread that'll never end!
It just goes on and on, my friends!
Some people started posting in it, not knowing what it was!
And they're still posting in it!
Because because because!

This is the thread that'll never end!
It just goes on and on, my friends!
Some people started posting in it, not knowing what it was!
And they're still posting in it!
Because because because!

This is the thread that'll never end!
It just goes on and on, my friends!

Some people-...

It seems like anything in the targeted area of effect would be able to be put in contact with the focus. Placing the focus at the point the spell is centered seems even better. There is no reason a sustained area effect spell should by impossible to sustained with a focus.

As an example (straw man) take the light spell. Cast it in a room, center it on the focus which is in the form of a candle sitting on a table. Is the room the target or the candle, maybe the table the candle is upon, or is there no target? Or is anything and everything in the area of effect a valid target, comparable to offensive spells? I would say the point the spell is centered on is the target, but can see people claim there is no target. It seems to me (notice I avoided logical ) that the candle (sustaining focus/target/point spell was centered upon) could then be picked up by anyone and the area of effect would follow the candle around, much like the light from an actual lit candle.

Interestingly, the Light spell isn't really an Area spell in the same way the others are. It creates a single mobile point of light that illuminates a radius around it (similar to a candle flame. Why the light stops once it travels to the radius of the caster's magic attribute mystifies me, but, hey, it's magic!). The reason I disallowed Light as a sustaining focus spell was that it isn't cast on something. The mobile point of light (how is it mobile? Does the caster control where it is? Can it be moved by hand? None of these questions are answered in the spell description) is just that, a mobile point of light, a little magical glowbug. There is nothing to use the sustaining focus on, no physical object to attach it to. From the description of a sustaining focus this means that the light spell cannot be sustained this way. Nor any other sustained Area spell.

The light spell that could be cast on the candle sustaining focus would be a modified spell that makes an object glow to offset darkness a la the light spell.

Sharaloth, you certainly treated that as a straw man.

I guess the question comes down to what is the target in an area of effect spell? Most other times, anything and everything in the area of effect is a target. The problem with illusion spells is the target is the perceiver.

Which brings up another point/question - are sustained spells for detection category spells useless? Detection spells are cast on subjects, but sustaining foci must be placed in contact with the target of the spell. By your strict reading of the rules (unless there is some errata I overlooked) a whole bunch of detection spells that are about only useful if in a sustaining focus or anchor are now worthless.

Ya know, can we can the drama and get back to the gaming. I like this board cause you can learn little things to make the game better. The drama I can deal with in real life and at the game table. Yessh

Yeah, just started not too long ago, after a friend of mine got me hooked on playing Shadowrun again. I'm running a game for him and three others and still learning he basics.

BitBasher meant that this is somewhat normal for Dumpshock. It isn't all bad though, because little gems of knowledge can come out of threads like this.

What I would say:

Area affect spells are spells centered on a specific location, so that location is the primary target -- where the quickening is, the sustaining focus must be, and so on. The location is the target, so the focus moves from that location (relative to the Earth), it loses contact.