Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!js2j
From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag)
Newsgroups: net.games.frp
Subject: Re: limiting magic
Message-ID: <732@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Apr-85 14:43:42 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.732
Posted: Wed Apr  3 14:43:42 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Apr-85 07:10:15 EST
References: <696@cornell.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 24

> yeah, well, whatever
> 
> I prefer the idea of expensive material components being required to create
> lasting magic.  After all, what were all those spells written with? and on?
> For instance, inscribing a rune for a fire spell, better have a little 
> ground ruby and dragon blood, etc.  This solution make seem artificial,
> but consider that a spell is a piece of power contained and focused by the
> mage's will, if he continues to concentrate on the spell, no problem, but
> if he ignores it entropy sets in and the spell decays until there's nothing
> left.  The rationale for material components of this nature is to say that
> they have sufficient power to hold the spell in statis until it is invoked,
> which negates the need for continous concentration.  

     Dragon blood for a fire spell?  This reminds me of the 'example' list of
ingredients for the components of the ink for a protection from petrification
scroll, which is listed in the AD&D DM's guide.  The ingredients include 
parts from several different petrification-causing monsters!  Anyone who
actually *needs* protection from petrification would never be able to 
gather the requisite components.  Catch-22.
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
    "No, not bird, nor plane, nor even frog.  
     Just little old me, <crash> UNDERDOG!"- not Idi Ahmin