| From: | shadowrn@*********.com (Allen Smith) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Enchantment and significant objects (was Re: Further questions regarding Magic Loss) |
| Date: | Tue May 29 03:10:03 2001 |
> To me, the "three distinct characteristics" rule was just a guideline, and
> the more important factor was that it was valuable enough to the mage to
> become a crutch. I've always ruled that the talisman had to be something
> of some sentimental value to the character BEFORE it could be a talisman.
> I'd allow, say, a rabbit's foot, even without three characteristics,
> because it's a lucky rabbit's foot. Or that silver medallion inset with a
> quartz crystal and a gold chain? Why that? Maybe it was a gift from an
> ex-girlfriend (or the current one) and so it's got sentimental value.
> Stuff that would make the PC twig out if it got lost or stolen, and
> probably make him/her go on a rampage until it was returned. But that's
> just me. :^)
Right (in regard to the "just me"). However, this does bring up
something I've been contemplating. If somebody decided to use a
rather-appropriate object for enchantment (say, they decided to
enchant a cyberskull to be implanted in them as a Power focus (or a
Combat Spell Category focus, or a Spirits of Man summoning focus, or
similar), despite the negative mods from Object Resistance (which
qualify as pretty ridiculously hard for spells like Analyze Device,
BTW)), that should really be getting them some benefits. Indeed, if
the choice is for something that's both appropriate and _limiting_ (to
use the cyberwear example, if they had a Guardian Angel implant that
was also an Anchoring Focus for a Stabilize spell, despite that that
would mean that damage to the implant would take out both
capabilities), one might well do something like subtracting one
"exotic material" from the total needed. Of course, a lot of this will
depend on the view of magic in use, namely that of the character(s)
involved and the GM.
Yours,
-Allen
--
Allen Smith easmith@********.rutgers.edu
