cornholioprime wrote:Whether one "buys" it or not, it remains, IN CANON, a "grey area" that Palladium has not addressed. Yay Palladium!!!Killer Cyborg wrote:demos606 wrote:Killer Cyborg wrote:As far as I know, it never states that you cannot stack multiple spells.
It also does not state that you cannoe stack the same spell multiple times.
But I think that common sense indicates that you cannot do either.
I'll agree that logic dictates 1 instance of a given spell. However, it's also perfectly logical to allow several spells with similar (and possibly overlaping) effects to be in place at the same time. Each of the spells in question gives a different specific amount of protection for a specific cost. Some of the spells grant more protection at a lower cost or less protection for a longer duration and are therfore obviously not identical spells, though the effects do overlap. Unless there is some compelling reason in the individual spell descriptions, there should be no problem with allowing them to function simultaneously.
By that logic, a mage should also be able to cast multiple types of sword spells and use them at once. In the same hand.
I don't buy it.
If one can find precedent, then one could go from there to go on and say "you know, there are no Canon Rulings on this subject, but based on Instance X in Book Y, I'd have to say........"
Since neither side can seem to produce "precedent" for one side of the Argument or the other (Apart from the example of Shiva [Rifts: Pantheons of the Megaverse, page 126], who is said to use multiple unnamed Magical Protective Spells at the same time), then BOTH sides are both 'wrong' and 'right' AT THE SAME TIME to try to assert either one stance or the other, at least as far as Canon is concerned......
Call me silly, but when in doubt I go with the answer that makes sense.