Foci and losin' 'em

From: Klyfix_at_aol.com
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 04:44:43 -0500 (EST)


David Dunham noted...
> 

> I play they do (since they learn spirit magic the same way). But I also
> play that foci are beneath mention in normal play, even when I use a
> detailed system like RQ. I assume that anyone who knows a Bladesharp spell
> has a focus tattoo on his wrist, or one engraved on the hilt of his sword,
> or in his fetish bag, or all three (just to be certain). It's simply part
> of knowing the spell. If someone were ever captured and all his foci
> removed, it might make a difference, but I don't see it making any real
> difference.
>

          I agree that they shouldn't be explicitly be noted in play. One thing that I remember from looking through my RQ2 book, though, was that one _could_ cast without a focus; it just took a lot longer. While I don't think you officially can cast without foci in RQ3, it would seem that you should be able to. The focus is sort of like a "cue card"; it helps invoke whatever pattern in the mind is involved in casting the spell. The one problem with that would be that it would be a bit more dangerous to capture prisoners if they can still cast after you've taken away the foci.

         Do blind people and trolls have foci that you touch instead of look at? And now that I think of it, couldn't somebody hide their foci that way?

V.S. Greene ; klyfix_at_aol.com : Boston, near Arkham....


Powered by hypermail