Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Leif" data-source="post: 4363361" data-attributes="member: 48762">Holding the chargeThis just came up for real!&nbsp; Renau1g, Kinem, in his Master of the Desert Nomads game made this ruling in reference to your character:[sblock=Kinem's Ruling, NOT MINE]&quot;renau1g, if you cast another spell, you can no longer hold the charge of a touch spell. This applies to your familiar holding a charge for you as well. Rajah would have known this so I will say that you did not go through with that plan.&quot; [/sblock]Well, I don't think that I like that at all!&nbsp; Anybody want to try saying that you can cast another spell, while your familiar is holding the charge of a different spell, with neither spell lost?&nbsp; I agree with Kinem that if you are holding a charge yourself and cast a separate spell, then th held charge is lost, but using a familiar to deliver the held charge seems like a perfect solution and an excellent reason to have a familiar.&nbsp; Opinions?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Leif, post: 4363361, member: 48762"] [b]Holding the charge[/b] This just came up for real! Renau1g, Kinem, in his Master of the Desert Nomads game made this ruling in reference to your character: [sblock=Kinem's Ruling, NOT MINE]"renau1g, if you cast another spell, you can no longer hold the charge of a touch spell. This applies to your familiar holding a charge for you as well. Rajah would have known this so I will say that you did not go through with that plan." [/sblock] Well, I don't think that I like that at all! Anybody want to try saying that you can cast another spell, while your familiar is holding the charge of a different spell, with neither spell lost? I agree with Kinem that if you are holding a charge yourself and cast a separate spell, then th held charge is lost, but using a familiar to deliver the held charge seems like a perfect solution and an excellent reason to have a familiar. Opinions? [/QUOTE]

Verification