From:	"Brian W. Allison" <bwa550s@***.SMSU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: spell locks
Date:	Tue, 5 Apr 1994 22:21:56 -0500

On Tue, 5 Apr 1994, ewok slayer wrote:

> There is one problem there. Spell locks can only do force 1
> spells. That is why Quickening is consiered better. You can have higher
> force spells quickened so that they can fight back easier. dats my bit
>
> * Darkstar
>

Um... No.
Spell locks are only force 1 astral creatures, for dispelling, responding
to astral attacks, etc, but there is no limitation on the force of the
spell they're locking. Where in the world did you get that idea??? The
reason a spell-locked spell only attacks as a force 1 creature is that
the -lock- not the spell, does the fighting. Quickening give the spell
itself enough energy to be 'alive' astrally w/out other help (sustaining
or locking), and therefore in the case of quickening the spell itself has
to be defeated.

Wanted to use a lock instead for 2 reasons.
1) a lock can be toggled on/off at the locking mage's will.
2) He really doesn't like the idea of initiating.

If it's an astral barrier (mana barrier), then it's opaque in astral
space, not realspace, and therefore the lock cannot be assensed for
dispelling unless the initiate is inside of the barrier. It was this idea
that I was trying to ping off the populace here.

You really don't think a force 2+ spell can be locked???

------------------------------------------
Brian (bwa550s@***.smsu.edu)
Michael Crawford = sing.god
(GEEK CODE) GCS d@ -p+ c++++!!!!! l u+(++) e+(++) m@(+/++/---) s@/@
!n--- h*(+) f+(?) !g(20/12) w+ t+ r+(++) y?