Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Rick Watkins <tazzanator@*******.COM>
Subject: Fetish Question
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 18:03:28 PDT
I've got a question about magical fetishes. If you have several spells
limited by fetishes, do you need a seperate fetish for each individual
spell, or, does one fetish cover all the spells in its category?

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 2
From: David Foster <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Fetish Question
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 21:25:40 -0400
On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Rick Watkins wrote:

->I've got a question about magical fetishes. If you have several spells
->limited by fetishes, do you need a seperate fetish for each individual
->spell, or, does one fetish cover all the spells in its category?

I've always had it a seperate fetish per spell.

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 3
From: HAUPT ULRICH FB08 <sandman@****.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: Fetish Question
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 11:59:55 MEZ-1MESZ
> I've got a question about magical fetishes. If you have several spells
> limited by fetishes, do you need a seperate fetish for each individual
> spell, or, does one fetish cover all the spells in its category?

I could not find a rule saying every spells requires it's own focus.
At least you need as many foci as many spells you cast
simultaniously!

Apart of that a whatever-focus (e.g. combat) matches the requirements
for any spell of that category.

Sandman
Message no. 4
From: Robert Nesius <nesius@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Fetish Question
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 21:24:47 -0700
At 01:03 -0000 8/14/98, Rick Watkins wrote:
>I've got a question about magical fetishes. If you have several spells
>limited by fetishes, do you need a seperate fetish for each individual
>spell, or, does one fetish cover all the spells in its category?
>

During the years I've played the game, all of the mages I've
known have had a separate fetish for each spell that has expendable
fetish in it's design. In fact, deriving the overall "theme"
of the fetishes has always been a major rp color point for us.
We've had characters use decks of cards, currency (for a
criminally/scam artist oriented character), and all sorts
of other stuff.

-Rob

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Nesius | Forget that polygon/second crap. Angband beats all
nesius@******.com | "next-gen" games, and does so w/ ASCII characters.
Message no. 5
From: Caric <caric@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Fetish Question
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 22:38:51 -0700
> From: Robert Nesius <nesius@******.COM>

> >I've got a question about magical fetishes. If you have several spells
> >limited by fetishes, do you need a seperate fetish for each individual
> >spell, or, does one fetish cover all the spells in its category?
> >
>
> During the years I've played the game, all of the mages I've
> known have had a separate fetish for each spell that has expendable
> fetish in it's design. In fact, deriving the overall "theme"
> of the fetishes has always been a major rp color point for us.
> We've had characters use decks of cards, currency (for a
> criminally/scam artist oriented character), and all sorts
> of other stuff.

We have always run it the same exact way Rob. Each spell has a very
specific type of fetish that must be used with it. It adds flair and
balances out the bonuses just a bit more.


Caric

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Fetish Question, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!