Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: Justin Pinnow <jpinnow@*****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Spelllocks....
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 07:45:39 -0500
Georg Greve wrote:
>
> Justin Pinnow (jpinnow@*****.edu) wrote:
>
> : Actually, you Quicken a force 1 spell with 1 karma point....AND you have
> : the flexibility to bond with more karma for more effect (higher force
> : spells). Thus, it's the Quickenings that are more powerful than the
> : spell locks....so why are mages being punished via focus addiction for
> : spell locks if it's the Quickenings that are more potent?
>
> Hmmm... I think Quickenings have one HUGE disadvantage: They cannot be
> turned off which means you have to make them strong enough to
> withstand all possible threats without additional protection... which
> is impossible - so using a quickening costs you about 6 points of
> karma per adventure (per quickening) which makes them pretty useless
> in my eyes.

<Snip>

I don't see the obligation to to make them more powerful just because
they can't be turned off. A force 1 quickening and a spell lock can be
"deactivated" with equal amounts of force. Since you can't turn a
quickening off, you should be careful of what you do, etc., but if the
aforementioned quickening is destroyed, it's only one point of karma to
replace it (just as it's only 1 point of karma to rebond the spell
lock).

Also, keep in mind that just because you have a quickening doesn't mean
that every magically active being in existence suddenly decides to try
to destroy it. That would be like every street sam out there attacking
anyone with a weapon....just not practical or wise.

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

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.