| From: | MC23 <mc23@**********.COM> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: MY Take (Binder's Look on Enchanting) |
| Date: | Fri, 15 May 1998 13:33:11 -0400 |
>Hey, enchantments can be used by mundanes, and here is the only example I can
>remember ...
>
>Hanna Uljanken (?!?) from Burning Bright had a Spell Locked (?) Increase
>Attribute (Charisma) spell on herself.
She benefitted from it but that wasn't her using it. It was the mage
that cast the spell and paid the Karma for it to work.
>So, the books do contradict themselves when saying a mundane can't use magic
>items.
No, they didn't in that example.
>I also believe that a mundane could benefit from a Conjuring Foci, in that the
>dice they would gain could be used to defend themselves against any and all
>spirit attacks on them.
They can't bond to it to get any effect.
>An enhanced Mindlink Spell (Grouplink), that is capable of being used by more
>than one individual to communicate with each other is also possible. We have
>used this sort of thing for years in the gaming group for the last, oh, 4+
>years that I readily know of.
Yet again it is the caster that is responsible for that one.
>You could throw some form of magical encryption into the spell during the
>design stage making it harder for someone to be able to understand the
>information that is being transmitted via the Grouplink spell.
That's still the spell and casters responsibility. And what does a
spell have to do with enchanted items.
>Just a few more things.
>
>Then there is the crazy idea one of the guys in the game group has come up
>with.
I don't even want to go into the parts of that idea where it falls
apart.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
