From: Burton Choinski (burt@ptltd.com)
Date: Fri 09 Jul 1993 - 17:44:36 EEST
Graeme Lindsell is back...
------------------------------------------------------------
| To Burton Choinski: Your new mechanics for sorcery look excellent: this
| is the sort of system I wished they'd produced originally. One thing I
| like is that the sorcerers now _have_ to be educated: the Studies would
| be similiar to the Lores that the polytheistic cultures study, though
| perhaps covering somewhat different areas: whereas Elf Lore tells you a
| lot about elvish culture and personality, Elf Studies would have a lot
| to say about anatomy and the structure of their minds.
That's what I hoped to bring into it. I had to mull over the name for a
bit before I decided on "studies". Your comment makes the concept much
clearer then I think I presented it.
| I would suggest that Studies give half skill in the equivalent Lore.
Actually, I think they should follow the "skill helping skill" rules in
the draft -- Add 1/5th your studies skill to the appropriate lore. Might
as well use consistant mechanics.
| The problems with spells such as Banish Air are a matter for play balance:
| that's what this list is here to discuss.
Those problems exist right now. And in mulling it over (and in typing my
document up) I have decided that "Banish" and "Conjure" work differently
from what I mentioned.
"Banish" simply prevents that element from entering the affected area.
It does not destroy the element. So a banish air around some poor soul's
head just produces a bubble of no-air. Intrusive attacks of that element
have a chance of popping the bubble using the resistance table.
"Conjure" does not create the element, but instead draws it from the
surrounding area. A "Conjure water" spell cast around someone will draw
the moisture out of the air and any nearby pools and concentrate it on the
target area. Conjured elements will form, but will not stay -- you need
to multispell it with "Animate" or "form/set" to get it to stay around
the target.
I had figured on banish being temporal, and conjure as well. Perhaps
Conjure fits best as an instant spell, and should be renamed to "Gather"
(i.e. "Gather Water")
| The "Enchant for Permanence": I had concluded that such a mechanic was
| required for Paul's system, and was going to suggest it when I returned from
| hols.
I just decided the "enchant" mechanic was best made a seperate tool and
able to be used as required. One could either "gather fire" quickly to light
a campfire, or multispell it with a permanent form/set on a protected rod
to make a perpetual torch. Or use "light" instead and make a flashlight. :)
I see my system "devolving" into three domains -- the "physical", which deals
with all the substance/element studies, the "meta-physical" which deals with
the hazy forces of magic and damage, and "essential" which deals with
matters of "species" and "object identity". There might be another
grouping...I won't know until I finally get everything classified.
| My only problem with this kind of enchantment is that it produces items
| that are more like D&D magic items ie +2 swords, unlike the matrices
| that are the RQ style of magic items. However, this type of item may be
| more appropriate to the West than matrices: in most European stories I've
| read, magical items tend to have virtues in and of themselves, rather than
| allowing the owner to cast spells.
I did not consider the "D&D" aspect. I was just concerened with making a
more consistant, and more flexible means of devoloping new spells.
| This sort of enchantment might explain the mass-produced magic swords of
| the Clanking City, which are mentioned in one source as having a "permanent
| Bladesharp 3" on them. A permanent Damage Boosting 3 can now be explained
| in the game mechanics: the only question is where the Clanking City got all
| of the Power. Perhaps we don't want to know...
Scary. It fits too well. Perhaps the GL's had a version of TAP that
distilled the drained attributes into POW instead of MP, leaving the
victim a soulless husk. Nasty.
Wayne Shaw comments, on the survey
------------------------------------------------------------
| My feelings on the survey were that the first question, the armor/damage
| bonus/weapon damage change were good in theory, not so good in execution.
| First off, I think a big fixed bonus is a bad idea. Among other things,
| it means a large entity can never graze you; fairly early on, any hit at
| all cripples you. I don't think this is a good thing.
I plan to use a +2 = 1d3 conversion. Thus, a creature with a +10 bonus
rolls 5d3. Easy to remember, and it keeps some randomeness. I also plan
to allow my players (YES! I convinced them to go this way! I can also
walk on water in my spare moments...:) to substitute 1d3 for any or all
+2 (or -2) values. So, one person might want to just use his pure +4,
while another might want 1d3+2, and another might want +2d3.
| Second, I think the change in values has some problems. While it's
| currently too easy to maim someone, the changed numbers make it basically
| impossible to kill someone outright. I realize the Fourth edition is
| trying to move away from the over-lethality of RQIII, but I find it
| disturbing that a critical blow to the head with a greatsword can't kill
| you outright.
Crit Slashed GS = max(2d6) +2d6 = 12+2d6, or about 19 hits...that will burn
just about anyone in my book.
| As to the second question...come on, people! Are we so lazy we can't
| keep track of two sets of hit location charts, when the majority of the
| time only one or the other will be in use for much of a combat?
Not lazy, we just hated the "limb-fest" the melee table has. We just
use the missle table for both.
-- Burton
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:19 EEST