From: Mystic Musk Ox (MAB@sa750.rl.ac.uk)
Date: Wed 18 Aug 1993 - 15:16:00 EEST
Burton Choinski writes...
> 3) I use a square table for duration and range, not a doubling one. So
This I quite like. I assume that with this system, you don't bother with
For the use of ceremony, I take it you mean that the points obtained
Would it be worth using the squaring system for Range etc also? That has never
> Duration 10 gets you 100x base duration, not 1024x. This, combined with
> the use of ceremony to increase actual duration and range (the dice rolled
> add to the range or duration factors before squaring) balances out the
> grossness of spells lasting forever.
Free Int, since the mp cost for long duration (>1 day) spells becomes
huge. (Incidentally, this would mean that lots of people, all combining
mp's in some way, would be needed to cast *really* long duration spells -
which somehow feels better. There is something like this in Call of
Cthulhu - the caster uses his/her mp's, and anyone else knowing the
spell may contribute mp's, others may only contribute 1 mp)
from the ceremony table can be divided up to row shifts on the Duration,
Range etc table as the caster sees fit?
seemed to cause the problems that Duration did, although for consistency it
might be useful to always use the same system....(I haven't thought out the
effects of doing so...)
A (possible) tweak on Ceremony that just occurred to me: The points obtained
on each die rolled must be used as a group ie all applied to
Range,or Duration or whatever i.e. each die must be applied individually
to one of the attributes of the spells. Thus longer Ceremonies (= more dice
rolled) will give more flexibility to distribution of points to attributes,
whereas shorter ones may well over or under achieve effects required.
Mark Buckley...
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:50 EEST