Techno Wizard Casting Through a Machine Question

[Zer0 Kay]

Well if KS posts anything here it will be new rather than a recap of something he's already posted here... since he hasn't posted here. Now if KC does... I guess. I'm still going to spectate.

Typoed.

Fixed.

PS....KS never posts anything here even when there is a call for him to. To clear up ...uuhhh... let's call it unclear canon text.

Not true his last post to Rifts was in 2010 Re: Traix and the NGR WB revised and updated.

His last rules post was Re: Simultaneous attack

So it would be more accurate to say he usually doesn't post. Absolute statements are more often less correct than uncertain or conditional statements.

[drewkitty ~..~]

13 years since his last post.... which sort of proves the idea of what I said if not the strict reading of what I said.

[Killer Cyborg]

Well if KS posts anything here it will be new rather than a recap of something he's already posted here... since he hasn't posted here. Now if KC does... I guess. I'm still going to spectate.

Typoed.

Fixed.

PS....KS never posts anything here even when there is a call for him to. To clear up ...uuhhh... let's call it unclear canon text.

Not true his last post to Rifts was in 2010 Re: Traix and the NGR WB revised and updated.

His last rules post was Re: Simultaneous attack

Huh.

What'd he say about it?

13 years since his last post.... which sort of proves the idea of what I said if not the strict reading of what I said.

Yeah, I guess the technically correct version would be "KS never posts anything here even when there is a call for him to anymore, and he never did it a whole lot even when he was active here."

[Killer Cyborg]

Well If KC posts another response saying the same thing with different words it will be a Jewish Poem.

Well, all I can really do is to keep re-explaining the same stuff in deeper detail, unless you either come up with some kind of logical counter-argument explaining why the written text directly and indirectly contradicts your idea that this passage is "flavor text" about TW devices.

I think I've established the facts in about as much detail as possible at this point, though, so I'm content to rest my case if you've got nothing else to say on the subject.

It looks like you're at least willing to grudgingly accept that nobody else in this thread is interpreting the rules the same way you do, and to try to address things in the context of the rules we believe are correct.

To answer the question in the OP....
No, a Vehicle can't be a Focus as per a 'it can be any old tech item held in hand' (not that I agree with the interpretation KC detailed), it is too big and consists of too many parts. No, ever a subsystem of a vehicle can't be a focus, it is not in itself a whole tech item.

It's definitely too big.
Consisting of many parts is not a listed criteria, though.
An ox-cart with only <12 parts wouldn't work because it's too big, but a hand-held computer with hundreds of parts could work.
At least, there's no canon reason why not.

I'd consider certain subsystems to be their own devices.
A gun attached to a vehicle is still a gun, for example, and a radio built into a vehicle is still a radio; either could be removed from the vehicle and still operate just fine, as long as it had a sufficient power source.

Now, perhaps it's possible that a device cannot serve as a spell focus if it's missing its usual power source, BUT that would be speculation not addressed in canon.
There is no mention of whether or not the C-18 and Revolver must be loaded in order to be used to cast Fire Bolt, and I don't see why it would need to be. There is no mention of casting a spell using any of the ammunition or energy from the device.
So if you pulled a car radio out of a car, it'd work.
And while it wouldn't be the most outlandish thing for a GM to house-rule that the radio MUST be pulled out of the car before being able to be used as a spell focus, it would be a house rule.

[drewkitty ~..~]

You posted twice in a row without anyone else posting, while saying the same thing in the second post as you did in the 1st.

When I post two posts in a row I at least talk about two different things.

Yes, I've run into people who delete the Descriptive Text from their understanding of the canon text. And they even argue that their resulting House Rules are the canon rules, even though they admit to not using the full canon text....⫸ ⫷

[Grazzik]

Now, perhaps it's possible that a device cannot serve as a spell focus if it's missing its usual power source, BUT that would be speculation not addressed in canon.

RUE pg 128 specifically mentions a TW using binoculars or goggles to cast - neither need batteries last time I checked. So, no, a power source is not required. The only canon requirements are that it a) be "a piece of technology" and b) "make sense... to focus his spell".

[drewkitty ~..~]

The lowest form of tech is a sharpened stick.

What is your dividing line between what a TW could use, as per this discussion, as a focus, and what he can't use?

[ShadowLogan]

The lowest form of tech is a sharpened stick.

What is your dividing line between what a TW could use, as per this discussion, as a focus, and what he can't use?

Actually the lowest form of tech could be just a stick used as a lever (nothing requires the tech in question to be a weapon).

Unfortunately there is no easy generic dividing line because the item and the spell have to have some type of relationship for the spell to be able to focus through the item. A pair of (sun)glasses can be used for Eyes of the Wolf or Eyes of Toth or See the Invisible spells, but not Superhuman Speed or Mystic Fulcrum. A Stick can be used for Mystic Fulcrum, but not a vision spell. Some spells might not even have usable item as a focus (Fear for example, though here it might require personalized touch to influence victims, you might not be afraid of spiders but someone else might and so a toy spider could be the focus for them to be influenced but not you).

I would think though that the item needs to be in a usable state (so no using Firebolt via a revolver that is missing a trigger for example).

[drewkitty ~..~]

I would differ in saying that Tech has to be a 'Made Object', not just something that was laying about on the ground.

Within the argument that tech items can be used as a focus for TWs, I would agree that the tech item has to be functional. This would disqualify TW magic items from being used as a focus. Because they are not (no longer) functional Tech items.

[Orin J.]

I would differ in saying that Tech has to be a 'Made Object', not just something that was laying about on the ground.

Within the argument that tech items can be used as a focus for TWs, I would agree that the tech item has to be functional. This would disqualify TW magic items from being used as a focus. Because they are not (no longer) functional Tech items.

now this raises a very interesting question, because TW revolvers ARE still functional SDC revolvers. which is the TW process itself rendering the items non-functional or is there a design philosophy among techno-wazards to sabotage the base device to further streamling the technowizardry function.

i would still invalidate TW gear as a channeling focus, but on the ground the device has been modified to actively try to absorb the channeled magical energy for it's own use, disrupting the spell channeling.

[drewkitty ~..~]

There will be exceptional TWs who actually merge tech and magic successfully. As per most of the examples, there are a lot of mediocre ones who can't or lazy ones who wont.

TW SD revolvers which can still use the ammunition they were 1st made for wouldn't have the " they don't work as tech" dividing line I suggested, because they do work.

The TW magic enchantments don't suck up energy passively, like regular magic items do) so that is not what interferes with using them as a so called magic focus, it is the idea/information in them that has been changed. Their Ideas are of magic items, the so called magic focus needs a Tech item to be used.

Magic is about ideas.

[Zer0 Kay]

Well if KS posts anything here it will be new rather than a recap of something he's already posted here... since he hasn't posted here. Now if KC does... I guess. I'm still going to spectate.

Typoed.

Fixed.

PS....KS never posts anything here even when there is a call for him to. To clear up ...uuhhh... let's call it unclear canon text.

Not true his last post to Rifts was in 2010 Re: Traix and the NGR WB revised and updated.

His last rules post was Re: Simultaneous attack

Huh.

What'd he say about it?

It was a question on can two people with firearms do a simultanious strike. He basically said it depend, but yes. If they see each other they can both try shooting and bang.

[Killer Cyborg]

You posted twice in a row without anyone else posting, while saying the same thing in the second post as you did in the 1st.

When I post two posts in a row I at least talk about two different things.

Well, all I can really do is to keep re-explaining the same stuff in deeper detail, unless you either come up with some kind of logical counter-argument explaining why the written text directly and indirectly contradicts your idea that this passage is "flavor text" about TW devices.

I think I've established the facts in about as much detail as possible at this point, though, so I'm content to rest my case if you've got nothing else to say on the subject.

Yes, I've run into people who delete the Descriptive Text from their understanding of the canon text. And they even argue that their resulting House Rules are the canon rules, even though they admit to not using the full canon text....⫸ ⫷

Not sure what you're trying to say there, but it doesn't seem to be a logical explanation for your stance, so I'm still content to just let my thorough explanations of the rules stand as-is, unless you have any questions or anything.

[Killer Cyborg]

Now, perhaps it's possible that a device cannot serve as a spell focus if it's missing its usual power source, BUT that would be speculation not addressed in canon.

RUE pg 128 specifically mentions a TW using binoculars or goggles to cast - neither need batteries last time I checked. So, no, a power source is not required. The only canon requirements are that it a) be "a piece of technology" and b) "make sense... to focus his spell".

Not just "technology," but specifically "a mechanical device."

While any lever, inclined plane, screw, etc., could be considered "mechanical," in that they are Simple Machines, they are only "devices" if they are "a thing made or adapted for a particular purpose,"
at my table I'd rule that it covered constructed/shaped tools (not found, such as a rock or stick, unless shaped or sharpened) that had at least one moving part.

I just don't think a flint knife or wooden stake is exactly what they had in mind when they wrote this passage.

[Killer Cyborg]

Well if KS posts anything here it will be new rather than a recap of something he's already posted here... since he hasn't posted here. Now if KC does... I guess. I'm still going to spectate.

Typoed.

Fixed.

PS....KS never posts anything here even when there is a call for him to. To clear up ...uuhhh... let's call it unclear canon text.

Not true his last post to Rifts was in 2010 Re: Traix and the NGR WB revised and updated.

His last rules post was Re: Simultaneous attack

Huh.

What'd he say about it?

It was a question on can two people with firearms do a simultanious strike. He basically said it depend, but yes. If they see each other they can both try shooting and bang.

Nice!
I've been telling people that for 30ish years, but they rarely seem to believe me.