From:	grahamdrew grahamdrew@*********.com
Subject:	Auras: Size does matter
Date:	Wed, 31 Mar 1999 04:08:23 -0500

Aerio Chrome wrote:
<snip questions 1-2>
>
> <snip question 3>
> >Well, if a player tried this, I would scream. Talk about trying to
> >abuse the system. So, as a GM, I would (to be fair) never try this
> >either. Same as above, though. Keep in mind that you can't turn the
> >spell lock off if you can't reach inside and touch it. (ick). Also,
> >the effects of the spell in the lock/quickening are in the aura of the
> >wearer, so they would still be effected (IMO) by grounding/quickening
> >attempts. Not too practical, regardless.
>
> Yeah, I'd scream too. I never said it was a practical/good idea, just
> something I was pondering late one night. I was thinking of spells that
> once active you wouldn't need to deactivate (such as bullet
> barriers/spell barriers/detect enemies/etc.). The point behind hiding the
> lock would be the "if-you-can't-see-it-you-can't-kill-it" philosophy. I
> mean if a character couldn't see the actual lock, but there was a spell
> affecting someone's aura than the natural assumption would be that the
> spell was being sustained by a mage-why try to ground through a focus if
> there isn't one there? Again, not a particularily useful/good/well
> thought out idea.

Actually, I belive it was the module Harlequin in which this was done.
Wasn't some type of spell lock woven into Frosty's leg?

>
> >Justin
>
> Aeriochrome
<snip .sig>
--
If a device is designed to do one thing really well, it can be
redesigned to do many things badly.
-Paranoia