Quote:
Originally Posted by korbeau
I've read (again) Magic recently and for some strange reason, I read something and for the first time, i'm confused about something.
We can read about powerstone that: "If a Powerstone is attached to an tem before that item is enchanted, the Powerstone becomes a part of the magical item. It is then a “dedicated” Powerstone. The item’s user may tap its energy – but only to power the spells cast by or through that item"
I understand the first part; if I build a staff of thunder, the energy for the spell will be taken from the powerstone but what about the second? Did it mean when you cast using a magic staff (the one mage can take to increase their reach) then the powerstone will fuel the spell instead of the mage?
If yes... then Magic staff, combine with powerstone is VEERRYY powerful!!
|
This confusion has been popping up about this particular phrasing for over a decade. Here's the clarification from kromm (dated 2003)
Dr. Kromm specifically stated (and was archived in Kromm Notes II) that Dedicated and Exclusive Powerstones can only be used to power spells enchanted onto an item. Yes, this is apparently an area where Magic has been superseeded. I read it the same way you did at first (and second) pass.
------------------------------------------------
d) If a staff with the Staff spell on it has a dedicated powerstone imbedded in it (and nothing else), does this allow the user to cast spells such as Deathtouch, Lightning, (heck even History or Analyze Magic) through the staff and power it with the stone?
No. A dedicated Powerstone is only useful for powering spells that are enchanted onto the item it is part of. A mage cannot use the stone at double efficiency (or any efficiency) just because he's casting spells through the item it's in, even if the item does have a Staff spell on it. The stone is
dedicated to the spells enchanted onto the item.
If you want to make Staves and Powerstones much more powerful, you are of course free to rule that they work as you assumed. But Kromm has gone to the effort (several times) of trying to clarify the original intent of the phrase in question, and above is his "official" interpretation.
arnej