Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Bob Ooton <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET>
Subject: Spell Locks & Exclusive spells
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 17:32:13 -0500
If a player has a locked spell (i.e. improved invisibility) and he wishes to
cast an exclusive spell, must the lcok be "off" or can he cast the exclusive
spell normally?


-- Bob Ooton <topcat@******.net>
Who just inherited a group of mages and phys ads and is looking for GM-style
loopholes...
Message no. 2
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Spell Locks & Exclusive spells
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 11:30:22 -0400
>>>>> "Bob" == Bob Ooton <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET> writes:

Bob> If a player has a locked spell (i.e. improved invisibility) and he
Bob> wishes to cast an exclusive spell, must the lcok be "off" or can he
Bob> cast the exclusive spell normally?

Spell locks do not count as sustained spells for purposes of exclusivity.
Same with quickenings and anchors.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | accelerate to dangerous speeds.
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! |
Message no. 3
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Spell Locks & Exclusive spells
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 18:27:22 +0200
> If a player has a locked spell (i.e. improved invisibility) and he wishes to
> cast an exclusive spell, must the lcok be "off" or can he cast the
exclusive
> spell normally?

Exclusive is exclusive, kick his ass for learning it that way.

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+$>++++ L+>+++ E--- N+ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Spell Locks & Exclusive spells, 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!