From: boris (mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com)
Date: Fri 11 Jun 1993 - 18:18:58 EEST
Some quick comments (I hope),
vvvvvv
Graeme wrote:
> A general comment: I had 250k of text sent from both the RQ mailing
>lists yesterday (and they said it was a dead system...).
But with a *fanatically* loyal following ;-)
>Re: Pauls and Mikes new system
> I would suggest reducing the number of separate skills a sorcerer needs
>to know, to something like the Ars Magica Creo, Ignem style. Spells could
>be trained up separately, and should be easier than learning the lores.
Or perhaps base the opening skill level on the appropriate lores when the
spell is learned. Could use the same mechanic as complementary skills,
and have the skill with each spell learned start at
(magic bonus + (Lore 1 skill)/20 + (Lore 2 skill)/20)% - difficulty mod
The difficulty modifier would vary as necessary for different spells. One
of the problems with RQ3 is all sorcery spells were equally easy to learn.
I could see some arcane and powerful spells (such as Time in yesterday's
(6/10) RQ Daily) having a modifier of -50 to -100 (or more), requiring lore
skills monstrously high to learn. But since Zzzabur (is that too many
z's?) is the only one who has learned it, and his lores are likely around
500-1000%, that's copacetic.
This will have two (related) desired effects. One, the more a magus knows
about an arcane subject, the more capable he is at spells dealing with it.
Two, it will tend to foster specialization among magi, as they would have
a choice of either learning spells they have the appropriate lores for at
moderate levels or learning spells they don't have lores for at low levels.
And if the difficulty modifier is high, it will take them many times longer
(taking 50 hours and adding a d6 to their negagive skill each time) to
learn spells without the appropriate lores. Or perhaps rule that a magus
must have non-zero skill with all lores a spell is based upon, and cannot
learn any spell unless their starting skill would be positive.
> (This is a hint for Paul to publish his rune sorcery concept: the
>westerners would divide their sorcery lores into runic areas; the other
>cultures could do it differently.)
The Kralori, for example, could base it on the powers of various draconic
or celetial beings, or on the various ki channels in the body, or maybe
tantric positions? Dwarfs might be based on the various dwarfin races,
and so Irondwarf lore would help with combat and weaponsmithing spells.
> The "special effects" of Presence: Loren suggested some nice ideas, but
>they all appeared fairly nasty (i.e hideous appearance, animals frightened).
>I think these are a case for Pendragon-like personality traits: an adept
>binds his twin to the physical world, unlike a shaman, and so his personality
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>becomes obvious in the real world. If the character is genuinely nasty, as
>many independent sorcerers seem to be, then there should be hideous and
>frightening effects. If he's saintly, there should be comforting, reassuring
>effects. Of course, what might comfort fellow worshippers may frighten others:
>the Dominican approach rather than the Franciscan...
I hadn't thought of this, but it has good effects. Since the twin is in
the real world, the adept would not be able to see on the spirit plane,
and would lack the shaman's Second Sight. However, he would have a Mystic
Vision-like ability (though much less powerful than RQ3's MV, please).
The shaman says the adept has "blinded" his fetch, but that may just refer
to it's inability to view the spirit plane.
I also *love* the adept's hidden nature being visible to all. Might make
it easy for the inquisition (Nobody expects the Loskalmic Inquisition!)
> I don't think Vows should be as severe as Geasa either. Certainly the
>earthly monotheist parallels have forgiveness for broken vows. From what
>I've read of Irish myth, the breaking of a Geas usually preceeded one's
>death by no more than a week. To balance this, a Vow should get you less
>than a Geas does; perhaps an increased chance of a POW gain while you
>keep to the Vow?
I thought the idea was that as each point of POW was given to your twin,
some vow or quirk had to be be part of it (perhaps all with the same vow,
perhaps not), and that to use that POW, you had to maintain the vow. So
it doesn't "get you" anything, other than ability to use your twin. Is
this incorrect?
-----
(*) ZZ [] (.) @ e K| o8- |> oK <>< )o 3 8 <|
Fools rush in where the Storm Bulls are holding a kegger.
Pavic proverb.
Boris
|><| +- (| >- .: K * =|= <- (O) ( ) (o) (|) X-
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:27:42 EEST