[catrone3]

So I got into a discussion with a friend and we are not coming to an agreement on this.

In the older books, it always mentioned foci had to be on the person or on your body to stay activated. In 5e it mentions it has to be in your possession though.

For a focus to remain active, it must be in the possession of the magician (worn,
carried, hand-held, in a pocket or pouch, etc).

So I get from that, that you can use magic fingers with your weapon foci and be ok since the foci are still in your possession. The friend says it has to be on your body since that is how all of the other editions were, they believe that is how it was meant. If however, the wording in the book is exactly how they were intended to work then would not magic fingers count as possession and thus allow you to wield the sword in the magic fingers while your person fires a gun?

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I'd say "No" on two counts.


First of all, it seems to me that the clarification that foci can be in your pocket as opposed to touching your bare skin but still has to be "on your person" means that the focus has to be within your aura.  Your aura extends out a few inches from the surface of your body and is why you can be targeted by spells even when you're wearing full body armor + helmet with nothing of yourself actually visible.

Secondly, once the focus is out away from your body I don't agree that it being manipulated by a Magic Fingers spell equates to being inside your aura.  If it's inside any aura other than its own, it'd be the spell's.  And the spell can't "count as you" or else you could directly be affected by directly affecting the spell.  Just because your astral signature is affixed to the spell's effects doesn't make it a part of you.  A simple rule of thumb that the spell can't satisfy is "can I do damage to you by attacking the spell itself?"


Actually there's a third count.  You can only make one attack per combat pass.  So even if you could telekinetically wield a weapon focus you couldn't also shoot someone in the same pass anyway.

[catrone3]

Well for your first count, 5e doesn't say anything about it needing to be in your aura, just in your possession. I can quote the entire paragraph if you would like, although it is on pg 318 of core. This would also negate the second count since you are correct in that magic fingers would only have your signature and not your full aura, although it would still be in your possession.

I was thinking to use this as a sort of always ready melee weapon, although if you wanted to two attacks in one pass the GM would have to be using Run&gun optional rule 1 which brings the multiple attacks per pass back

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Well for your first count, 5e doesn't say anything about it needing to be in your aura, just in your possession. I can quote the entire paragraph if you would like, although it is on pg 318 of core. This would also negate the second count since you are correct in that magic fingers would only have your signature and not your full aura, although it would still be in your possession.

I see what you're saying, but I just don't agree.  As I said, I view "in your possession" as having been the writers' intent to mean "on your body somewhere".  And my synthesis of a magic device having to be "on your body somewhere" means it has to be within your aura.

Something you left back at your doss during your Shadowrun is something you still own and can thus be argued as "in your possession", can't it?  Yet that's obviously not going to work for a sustaining focus.

I don't mean to argue- just giving you an opinion.  One that you asked for

[catrone3]

Oh, I realize you are not meaning to argue. Your view is exactly the same as the friends. Something I suspect comes from having played older editions previously to 5e. Sadly without the writer or hardy commenting, knowing exactly what was the writers intent is speculation and basically left to interpretation.

[Marcus]

I would rephrase in your possession more precisely to within your aura.
The important thing about weapon foci is they become an extension of your character astral self.
A spell that handles objects in the physical world is not an astral link to the object.
In the same way there are no ranged astral weapon foci, there are no used at removal from aura options ether.

That's my logic. GL!

[firebug]

Stainless Steel Devil Rat's first post is accurate.

Generally speaking, "possession" is a very vague term.  You are right catrone3, that it's something related to having played older editions, but it's also a bit of contextual understanding you get about the game as you play and read the books.  I'll bring this passage to the attention of the errata team, as a simple change from:

"For a focus to remain active, it must be in the possession of the magician (worn, carried, hand-held, in a pocket or pouch, etc)."

to

"For a focus to remain active, it must be in contact with a magician's aura (worn, hand-held, or else hanging close to their body)."

Would go a long way to make things clearer for players and GMs, while also giving insight to the nature of magic in the setting.  One of these dozens of magic books should really include a direct lexicon page where things like Essence, Aura, Signature, Mana, and so forth are all given clear definitions.  Even just including it in a 12-page PDF-only book would go a long way...

[catrone3]

I would agree with the word change needed firebug, as possession as a word just means within one's control. And while I had been told that it has to be on your person by others, it let me rereading the book and noticing that in core the context about it is not there. This isn't the first thing I have noticed like that within core, where people always play it one way yet the context for that play is missing.

It would also be good to define aura and astral signature since you can track down someone by the astral signature even though their person only gives off an aura in the astral plane until they move.

[Kiirnodel]

Personally, I would rather approach this from the other direction. What part of Magic Fingers qualifies as still within the Magician's possession? Yes, the item could be considered "possessed" in the demonic/spiritual sense, but the whole point of Magic Fingers is that it allows the magician to remotely manipulate an object outside of their direct possession.

Magic Fingers lets you manipulate an object "as if it were in hand." That doesn't mean it actually is in hand, nor in the magician's direct possession.

[catrone3]

Magic fingers are controlled and in possession by the mage and thus them controlling/having possession of a weapon would mean the mage is controlling the weapon, this is implied by any skills used with magic fingers use the mages skill level for it. This is also similar to how if there was an illegal substance in the car with you and you own the car, then you would get charged with possession because at that point it was in your possession. That is why I would say it is still in the magician's possession.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Well, what about a spell sustaining focus then?

By your same argument you could leave a sustaining focus in the car and it'd remain in your possession and the spell it's sustaining wouldn't drop as you ran off to do your Shadowrun.

[firebug]

Magic fingers are controlled and in possession by the mage and thus them controlling/having possession of a weapon would mean the mage is controlling the weapon, this is implied by any skills used with magic fingers use the mages skill level for it. This is also similar to how if there was an illegal substance in the car with you and you own the car, then you would get charged with possession because at that point it was in your possession. That is why I would say it is still in the magician's possession.

Unfortunately, the way magic functions is not defined by metahuman laws, and so saying "I'd still get arrested for having purchased the weapon foci!" isn't really a valid argument at all.

Claiming you "possess" your spell effect is also questionable.  I'm pretty confident you don't really believe it works that way and are trying to invent justification for it.  However, let me remind you, that even if you were able to have your active foci a meter away from you, it'd only gain you a few dice for when you decide to attack with it instead of doing anything else on your turn, maybe a bit more than enough to make up for the sustaining penalty.  It won't offer you any extra utility; you're probably better off just learning a LOS combat spell like Clout (which does not become less effective at close range) for when enemies close in if you're so concerned about needing to melee someone while your hands are full.  You're jumping through hoops to justify something so you can add a small dice bonus to a sub-optimal strategy you probably won't get any use out of.  This probably isn't worth your time.

[catrone3]

This actually came about because a character I am using in a game has a weapon foci and a DMR, normally the DMR is used however shedim showed up so the weapon foci made sense to use. However, the shedim were to far away for normal movement to be worth it, so the idea of using magic fingers to get the sword over there came to me. And with the foci being a force 10, the -2 penalty to sustain it isn't a problem, plus it is normally sustained on a sustaining foci.

As for whether or not I believe you have possession of a spell, I do. Reason being the definition of possession, which as follows is having control over something.

pos·ses·sion
/pəˈzeSHən/
noun
1.the state of having, owning, or controlling something.
2.an item of property; something belonging to one.

The first definition means that if I am controlling a spell, I have possession of the spell. If I am using that spell to control a weapon or item, I have possession of that item or weapon for the time being.

[Carmody]

I agree with  Stainless Steel Devil Rat when he says
I view "in your possession" as having been the writers' intent to mean "on your body somewhere".

There is one important thing to keep in mind regarding Shadowrun: the universe is not rebooted with each new edition, even if the world is reflected differently in the rules.
If you were not able to use foci from a distance in previous edition, it is not the case in this one, except if an in-world explanation is given.
Sure, nobody's perfect and  you will find some exceptions to this rule, but in case of doubt on a rule, assuming the world has not changed since previous edition is your best guess, in my opinion.

[catrone3]

If you were not able to use foci from a distance in previous edition, it is not the case in this one, except if an in-world explanation is given.

While normally I would agree with you on that, I have seen it several times in 5e where that is not the case with magic. I mean just look at background counts, their strength doubled but you still take stun after 12. So a change in how magic works could be something that happened here as there are multiple cases of that happening in 5e, same can be said with the matrix as well.