I want to thank all of those who replied to or commented on my untappable
sources idea. Below is a summmary of the discussion & my responses.

>>MylonDrow wrote:

>> I like that idea. Untappable because they are bound to a specific task. It
>> sends shivers up and down my spine. That is a major Cerilian Mage-hoser.
>> Especially if you want to limit the power of a power-hungary PC mage. If
>> he/she is after more sources, just deem some of them untappable. I really
>> like that idea. Thanks.

>Gary V. Foss wrote back:
>I kind of like the idea too,but I"m a little unclear on how this would prevent
>another regent from moving in and taking over. A bound source would still be
>contestable wouldn't it? What's the difference between a bound source and a
>source already held by another wizard?

As I conceive of it a bound source can not be properly contested until the Spell
it is powering is dispelled for a time with an appropriate Dispel spell. If the
caster is still alive he can of course resist the contest action. If the
action fails the spell will re-energize. Note Mordenkainens Disjunction will
absolutely positively take take a bound source spell down. Treat it as if it
a Dispel Magic (Mundane or Realm) and a successful contest action combined.

>It does, however, imply that a mage could use the sources under his control to
>maintain a spell indefinately. I like this idea as it seems to greatly
>the power of mages (who I still say are inordinately weak) and give them a real
>reason to want to control sources.

>A couple of possibilities: There should be a realm spell that a mage would
use to
>make "permanent" a spell of any level. This Tie Spell to Source (Alteration)
>spell should allow the wizard to tie a source to a spell of 1st-9th level. The
>source must be of at least the level of the spell. (Kinda neat that
sources are
>up to level 9, just like spells.... Coincidence?) That is, a source (3) for a
>third level spell. A source can maintain as many spell levels as it has levels
>itself, so a source (7) could maintain two second and a third level spell.

>While used thus, the source is effectively neutralized. That is, a wizard
>cannot use it to cast realm spells unless he also has a ley line into that
>province to which is attached another source of high enough level to allow
him to
>cast a realm spell. He still collects regency from it normally. This
spell can
>be cast in any province using a ley line. The "home" source is then used to
>maintain the spell and is "neutralized" as above.

>If the source is ever successfully contested (just once) or it is lowered by
>building up the province to something less than that required to maintain the
>level of the spell, the spell collapses. If more than one spell is being
>maintained by the source, the spell that collapses is determined randomly.

Very Good Sir ! This is exactly the sort of thing I was hoping that y'all would
come up with. In line with my prior response above I think that a source once
bound could not be ruled down by the province holder until it had been
successfully contested. The spell would go inert if successfully contested
once and collapse if
successfully contested a second time.

>Gary V. Foss wrote :
>Another thought or three for this realm spell. Cost: 1GB and 1RP/spell
level of the
>spell to be kept permanent. 7th level caster. (I think 7th level is good.
l>evel a wizard has to be to cast Extention I, which I think is 7th off the
top of my

Why not make it permanent with a permancy spell ?.

> Lastly, a source that is only partially bound can still be used to cast
>realm spells. That is a source (5) bound by a 3rd level spell could still
be used to
>cast a realm spell requiring a source (2).

Exactamundo ! :)

>I'm also thinking there is no reason why a priest regent shouldn't be able
to do
>something similar in a temple...

For a Priest Regent here is an example of how I see it. A temple holding
(2) in Djafra
is tasked to maintain a ward realm spell to protect the province from
hordes of undead. The spell is up "permanently" unless you waste the temple or
successfully contest the temple holding. The Temple generates no Regency or
GB's for the Temple Regent, everything goes into maintaining the spell.
************************************************** **************************
>>Harding Nick MMUk wrote:

>> I have a few questions about this
>> 1)What would happen if the source had a ley line on it? Could a more
>> powerful spell be cast upon it with extra power needed being conducted
>> down a ley line

>Gary V. Foss wrote back:
>I had in mind only making it possible to bind spells to a single source to give
>wizard regents even more reason to try to preserve their sources, though I
>uppose you could justify tying several sources together to create a high.
>nough "source" to back a higher level spell. I think I prefer not doing it.
>hat way, however, as I REALLY want mages to view their sources as precious and
>anything I can do to aid that I'll do.

a) Ley lines run between provinces not between sources. At present you do
not need a source in a province in order to forge a ley line into it.
b) As far as the linking of sources via a ley line to do a spell,.........ah
no. I'll have to go with Gary's answer.

>>Harding Nick MMUk wrote:
>> 2) If someone used the borrow source spell, would they be able to cast
>> a permanent spell using a borrowed source? Would the controlling wizard
>> be able to cancel any spell permanented on their source by a borrow
>> source spell.

>Gary V. Foss wrote back:
>I think the spell would be canceled once the source reverted back to the
>original owner since it is kind of reliant upon the spellcaster having a
>constant connection to the source. If someone borrowed a source that was
>already tied to a spell I'd make that enough to disrupt the tie and cancel the

Good question but again Gary has the answer I agree with.

>>Harding Nick MMUk wrote:
>> 3)DK Evermore suggested a permanent ward by the spell, would this mean
>> that your extension realm spell violates the 1 realm spell per turn
>> rule?

No, because it was cast in the past. BTW where is this rule to be found in
the rulebook ?

>Gary V. Foss wrote:
>I was thinking only 1st-9th level spells could be tied to a source. Making
>realm spells a possibility doesn't make sense because the basic power of a
>realm spell already comes from the source. I didn't envision this realm spell
>as a loophole to the durations of realm spells. Just as a loophole to the
>durations of 1st-9th level spells. :)

I would allow a realm spell to be used so here Gary and I part ways. Until
of course
somebody comes up with one those "Nope, can't have that, gotta change the rule"
situations. :)
************************************************** **************************
>Pieter A de Jong wrote:
>You do realize, that mages are going to figure out how to bind sources to
>such purposes themselves. They will then bind there lesser sources to doing
>useful things (such as producing sweetwater potions), while using their
>large sources to power spells off their ley line network. In effect giving
>them more power.

Yes and a good thing too ! (Imho)
************************************************** **************************
Since I first conceived of this I also have had the idea of having source
These protect a source from interference. These are nasty magical traps. For
a tasked source is protected by a flaming sphere spell that is powered by
source 2 permanently. Interfering with the tasked source by attempting to
rule, or neutralise it would cause the guardian spell to activate. I have no
with these available over a ley line network.

Oh yeah one other thing. a tasked/bound source can only be contested, ruled,
or neutralised from inside the province where the source is located.