From:	Justin Pinnow <jpinnow@*****.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Spelllocks....
Date:	Mon, 9 Dec 1996 13:26:32 -0500

Midn Daniel O Fredrikson wrote:

> > > Oo-er. Even allowing for defining spell locks as foci, I wouldn't go this
> > > far. Focus addiction in particular (which is what I assume this thread was
> > > referring to) is meant to reflect an ever-increasing reliance on the extra
> > > power/boost given to you by your foci, and a subsconscious laziness on
> > > your part. Spell locks don't give you extra power in this way, so I don't
> > > think the rationale behind focus addiction will suffice.

> > What do you think spell locks do but give the magician's power a boost?
> > Increasing an attribute, or reactions, does sound like a power boost to me.

> By your own argument, both quickening and archoring would have the same
> results, since they can increase an attribute or reaction or hold a spell
> without the magician having to worry about sustaining it...

I agree. I recently had this exact argument with one of my GM's...that
if spell locks count toward focus addiction, that quickenings should
also. I still feel that no sufficient argument has been made to justify
why spell locks count toward focus addiction. I feel (as it stands now)
that only the other types of foci (excluding fetish foci, of course)
should count toward focus addiction.

Justin :)
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Justin Pinnow
jpinnow@*****.edu