1) Is there any limit to the number or power of spells that can be embedded in a particular person or thing?

2) Can you embed spells in substances which can endure for incredible amounts of time, like diamonds or corundum crystal or ceramics? How does "aging" affect inorganic items which don't naturally decay or erode?

3) If you embed a spell in yourself, rolling to resist aging at the time the spell is cast, do you have to resist aging again when the spell goes off? Or can you use your entire Pool on the casting and embedding and skip the aging roll at time of casting, because the spell doesn't actually "go off" and burn through you until you release it?

Hi Stephen!

Oh boy, based on your previous two threads, I cannot wait until you put all this together in the context of actual play. You may end up being the TROS sorcery expert for the rest of us to learn from.

Regarding your question #1, I can only say, "Yeah, Jake. Is there?" (Hey, waitaminute, I think there is ... I'll check out the rules tonight, if I remember ...)

Regarding your question #2, my Seneschal-call would be to extrapolate a month-equivalent for these items. That is, insofar as a month is a given fraction of a human's typical life-span (assuming death by senescence), then apply an equivalent fraction to the thing. Also, since I do not consider any material object to be immune to entropy, the final phrase seems a non-issue to me.

Regarding your question #3, you've managed to puzzle me slightly. As I understand it, the way to cast an embedded spell has two steps. (1) You cast the spell and deal with the aging-resistance at that time. (2) Under the conditions of the spell's release, it goes off, and no further rolls are necessary (it's good to record the original number of successes and so forth, in order to deal with resistance rolls and other relevant conditions at the time of the spell's release, if necessary).

Your option of saving the spell's aging-effect until its release seems backwards to me; it removes one of the most important aspects of embedding the spell in the first place - casting it under conditions which lower the TN, thus allowing more dice to be allocated to the aging-resistance roll.

As you describe it, the sorcerer would suffer every victory in the spell-casting roll as aging, because the entire Pool had been spent on the casting, which seems bizarre to me. The only way it would make sense is if the refreshed Pool could be used to resist aging, which I don't think is part of the system - as I understand it, the only dice you can use to resist aging are those you set aside from the spell-roll from your Pool at the time of casting.

However, I could be misunderstanding any number of things, and especially if I'm misinterpreting the rules themselves, someone let me know.

Best,
Ron

As I understand it, when you embed a spell in an object, you set aside the dice used to actually cast it. When you want it to take affect you basically have a spell pool of those dice you set aside to cast it, which can be split normally to cast/resist aging. I believe there is an example of this in the book. But here's a quick one. You cast Armor of Air into a rock. Your normal spell pool is 14, you use 4 for the casting and 10 to resist aging. All you have to do is succeed at casting and write the dice that you used to cast with down. So when you want to use the Armor of Air spell that you have stored you have 4 dice to roll, you can divide them up for casting, or resist aging rolls as normal. I use rocks or sling bullets for the most part, stuff that aging a couple of months won't bother. If you embeded the spell on your self then you are effectively rolling aging rolls twice on yourself, once when you originaly cast it (with 10 dice to resist), and second when you activate it (up to 3 dice to resist aging).

The reason I'm asking is because in my previous questions about addressing the limitations of casting speed and high-frequency use, embedded spells have been cited as the answer to these situations. Yet the rules for embedded spells, if Shadowjack is right, seem to be in some ways even more restrictive than spontaneous magic.

Yes, you can cast the original spell in CTN-minimized conditions to minimize aging, but the usefulness of this is lost when the embedded spell goes off -- every die you save to resist aging in the embedding reduces the dice you can use to resist aging in the casting, so there's no real "aging break" to make it worth the tradeoff of time and planning. And if a second casting roll is required at time of "setoff", that reduces the reliability as well. Furthermore, if there are limits to the number of spells that can be embedded in any one person or thing, this reduces or eliminates the traditional pulp phenomenon of casual use of magic in a sorcerer's lair -- one of the things embedded spells were supposed to help reproduce. So either embedded spells aren't nearly as useful as they've been painted or I'm missing something.

Just out of curiosity, what is the "official" explanation as to why magic ages you? Is it the strain of wrestling with these energies to make them do what you want (in which case aging rolls should be made at the time of casting embedded spells) or is it the backlash from the energy once it actually surges through you and out at its target (in which case aging rolls should be made at the moment the embedded spell goes off)?

Stephen wrote: 1) Is there any limit to the number or power of spells that can be embedded in a particular person or thing?

2) Can you embed spells in substances which can endure for incredible amounts of time, like diamonds or corundum crystal or ceramics? How does "aging" affect inorganic items which don't naturally decay or erode?

3) If you embed a spell in yourself, rolling to resist aging at the time the spell is cast, do you have to resist aging again when the spell goes off? Or can you use your entire Pool on the casting and embedding and skip the aging roll at time of casting, because the spell doesn't actually "go off" and burn through you until you release it?

Well, what my sorceror has Embeded are 9 Fling Spells Ritualized, and put into sling stones, That gives me a SP to cast of 26 (14 SP, 5 form, 5 discipline, 2 for the time of the spell) with a CTN of 2. Since I have a familiar I spend 2 dice on aging roll (just in case) and the rest on the spell itself. This give me a spell that has line of sight and does 4+(24 rolls CTN 2) in DR. Enough to blow a hole through anything. Do have to make a Missle pool roll to hit, but that's ok.
Other spells I have Embeded are 2 Armor of Air(which is much better cast as a ritual spell) and Flight (both in stones on a necklace).
Then I leave a couple slots open for other spells. (That's 12 of the 14 that I can have embeded)

Stephen wrote: The reason I'm asking is because in my previous questions about addressing the limitations of casting speed and high-frequency use, embedded spells have been cited as the answer to these situations. Yet the rules for embedded spells, if Shadowjack is right, seem to be in some ways even more restrictive than spontaneous magic.

Yes, you can cast the original spell in CTN-minimized conditions to minimize aging, but the usefulness of this is lost when the embedded spell goes off -- every die you save to resist aging in the embedding reduces the dice you can use to resist aging in the casting, so there's no real "aging break" to make it worth the tradeoff of time and planning. And if a second casting roll is required at time of "setoff", that reduces the reliability as well. Furthermore, if there are limits to the number of spells that can be embedded in any one person or thing, this reduces or eliminates the traditional pulp phenomenon of casual use of magic in a sorcerer's lair -- one of the things embedded spells were supposed to help reproduce. So either embedded spells aren't nearly as useful as they've been painted or I'm missing something.

Just out of curiosity, what is the "official" explanation as to why magic ages you? Is it the strain of wrestling with these energies to make them do what you want (in which case aging rolls should be made at the time of casting embedded spells) or is it the backlash from the energy once it actually surges through you and out at its target (in which case aging rolls should be made at the moment the embedded spell goes off)?

Shdwjack wrote: Well, what my sorceror has Embeded are 9 Fling Spells Ritualized, and put into sling stones, That gives me a SP to cast of 36 (14 SP, 5 form, 5 discipline, 2 for the time of the spell) with a CTN of 2. Since I have a familiar I spend 2 dice on aging roll (just in case) and the rest on the spell itself. This give me a spell that has line of sight and does 4+(34 rolls CTN 2) in DR. Enough to blow a hole through anything. Do have to make a Missle pool roll to hit, but that's ok.
Other spells I have Embeded are 2 Armor of Air(which is much better cast as a ritual spell) and Flight (both in stones on a necklace).
Then I leave a couple slots open for other spells. (That's 12 of the 14 that I can have embeded)

I'm not going to answer any questions (not yet at least), because I (1) think what you need is in the book and (2) I didn't write the sorcery system (allthough I did revise it pretty heavily).

I will address "why does magic age you," though. My take on it is that as you channel all of this directionless life-force through you and then funnel it out into your "spell" you have to really wrestle for control over it, or it will injure you. How does life-force injure you? It tears some of yours away as it passes. Another way of looking at it is that you're using your own life force and giving it direction via the spell, and if you maintain good control than you don't over-use your own batteries; if you do, then it comes out of your life, because you over-worked your "generator."

The answer could be either or neither.

Continue hacking.

Jake

Bob Richter wrote: So don't embed spells in yourself. A good sorceror always has items to hand. A gnarled staff. A pouch full of stones. A rusty old sword. A floppy hat. You can embed a spell in just about anything and IT ages when the spell is cast.

Never doupt the usefullness of embedding spells, observe a Highly useful and deadly spell my sorcerer once cast. My sorcerer hates the Inquisition, to a point of wanting to eradicate them, and i found a oppertunity i couldn't pass up. i cast an imbedding spell and embedded the Spite spell in an inquisition guard from long range, i also added a conqurer effect to the embedding that forced him to release it immediately if he failed to resist my conqurer 2. dice used? 15 to cast, 5 to resist aging and i had a familiar. the result? an Extreamly large explosion at the gate of a inquisition barracks, leveling half of the building and decimating everyone inside, also leveled a bit of the surrounding area and took off half of the fort's front gate. the army i was working for had a much easier time taking this fort becouse of that. i love embedding spell. now for spells on yourself, there is a different way to cast them, merely use summoning magic to give a duration of weeks(+3 to CTN) and cast it as a ritual, that will give you axcess to useful spells like fly when you need tham, without double aging knocks.

The official reason magic ages you is this: "There is a moment, a space in time where what you realize is accelerated past what is happening around you. While events occur around you, you peer on detached and puzzled, as the revelation of what is strikes you as odd. You understand what could be and will be, if only you take the time to guide the space as it flows through matter and its leftover, energy. In that instant you harmonize with nothing and cease to be, terrifying your soul as you die and are confronted with your petulant insignificance in time and history. You realize the true strain of nonexistence, of using yourself as a fulcrum, of defying perception and forcing your life to mean something other than the trivial pursuit of your own happiness only to awaken to the swallowing void of inevitable entrophy. In an eternity, the seconds you spend understanding the simplicity of the pivotal nature of escapism in relation to human philosophy sap from you the will to be, and burn from you the price for your heightened awareness. To guide space through time and matter takes negative energy, a gift that the death of a cosmic entity permeated the matter of the Weyrth with. Those that came first, they who were created of what was and of what is possess the greatest concentration of what may only be describes as the path along which reality (or the understanding of physical matter imbued with energy) must flow. To change that path requires an indomitable force of will, and the understanding of not only what was, but what is and what may yet be. This understanding can be used to alter the flow of existence, but only at a great cost. The fool who casts himself confidently into the stormy sea only to realize in a gasping breath that the battle for his very life hinges solely on his reserves of strength and his resolve to survive. In short; you battle yourself, your desires your abilities and your understanding in an attempt to bring about what you can only hope is the best result for everyone involved. To achieve this goal, your body must eat itself in order to maintain its existence. Negative energy is an enormously complicated thing to direct, and requires an equal amount of positive energy in order to maintain the symmetrical balance of existence. To generate an excess of positive energy requires some expenditure of physical material. Unfortunately, negative energy only has only to reside and pool, drawn into infinity while flittering against itself and coalescing into space with time. For it to be directed requires energy that must be diametrically synchronized to attract the negative energy along a positive path. It is this path that guides the course of the negative energies action, and if done with enough care and time it can be forced to alter its path without adversely affecting the conductor. If done hastily, the positive energy needed to draw the energy along is burned from the accelerated molecules as they split and reproduce whilst devouring themselves to shed what little excess heat and electricity they can offer to aid in maintaining their existence. “

Nice. That'll be in SatF.

Jake

Nice. That'll be in SatF.

Jake

Oddly enough, as mystical as that explanation was, I think I can work it into the pseudo-"scientific" explanation I had been working on, based on recent reading of Scientific American back issues. I think I can use some of the quantum physics articles to work in with Rick's description and make an almost coherent whole (although I may have to make some slight modifications to Rick's description, I think I can keep the feel of it).... ah, the power of pseudo-science! It's almost as strong as cheese!

Later on when I'm more sober, perhaps I'll post what I've come up with, if anyone's interested.

Lucien

Lucien Black wrote: Oddly enough, as mystical as that explanation was, I think I can work it into the pseudo-"scientific" explanation I had been working on, based on recent reading of Scientific American back issues. I think I can use some of the quantum physics articles to work in with Rick's description and make an almost coherent whole (although I may have to make some slight modifications to Rick's description, I think I can keep the feel of it).... ah, the power of pseudo-science! It's almost as strong as cheese!

Later on when I'm more sober, perhaps I'll post what I've come up with, if anyone's interested.

Lucien

Well, I don't see it as really a science thing at all...I don't care all that much for science. I *do* have the hair and fingernails grow, but mostly because I think it's a fun effect and explains why wizards have long beards. I think that we get over-analytical on the magic, sometimes.

Jake

Jake Norwood wrote: Well, I don't see it as really a science thing at all...I don't care all that much for science. I *do* have the hair and fingernails grow, but mostly because I think it's a fun effect and explains why wizards have long beards. I think that we get over-analytical on the magic, sometimes.

Yeah, I agree, it is. I would personally rather see things more mythical and generic, especially now that it's been around a while, but that isn't what it is. Back in '00 when I first talked with Rick McCann about doing the sorcery section he said he had some great ideas and I let him run with it. I still think that his ideas were (and are) really great, even if they aren't exactly how I would have done it. The thing is that I'm pretty weak in the world of science, so I stay out of it. I'm good with fighting and history and languages and mechanics, but not really the concepts of science.

What I would like to see happen is for magic to take two paths in Sorcery and the Fey: one along very pseudo-scientific lines (the way Rick envisions it, I believe) and one along very fairy-tale-esque lines, the way that I see the fairies and the elves using magic. I think both versions have an important place in TROS, not only as a system, but among the people that play it. The funny thing is that the only real difference between the two would be in the explanation of why thing work and what the vagaries do--not really in application, I think.

Jake Norwood wrote:
What I would like to see happen is for magic to take two paths in Sorcery and the Fey: one along very pseudo-scientific lines (the way Rick envisions it, I believe) and one along very fairy-tale-esque lines, the way that I see the fairies and the elves using magic. I think both versions have an important place in TROS, not only as a system, but among the people that play it. The funny thing is that the only real difference between the two would be in the explanation of why thing work and what the vagaries do--not really in application, I think.

Irmo wrote:

Well, when one speaks of "molecules being accelerated" or from using Vision to observe processes on a cellular level, it's hard to leave science out.

Surga wrote:

Irmo wrote:

Well, when one speaks of "molecules being accelerated" or from using Vision to observe processes on a cellular level, it's hard to leave science out.

It sounds to me more of a language thing - the author speaking to the reader about what those spells entail. The processes do not need to be scientific from the character's perspective. The next edition of the book might say things about even more advanced processes that our modern world may have discovered and then had entered the common vernacular. That does not necessarily mean that sourcerers will suddenly know the same common concepts.

Irmo wrote:

Well, if he needs to be able to observe a process at the cellular level, it follows quite stringently that he needs to understand them at least to some degree. If what he sees holds no comprehensible information for him, he might as well stare at the clouds. But my point WAS the player level, the effect when I read of molecules traveling at the speed of light, or hair growing an equivalent of months within seconds.