From: Burton Choinski (burt@ptltd.com)
Date: Wed 18 Aug 1993 - 20:22:28 EEST
Mark Buckley, on my comments
%%> 3) I use a square table for duration and range, not a doubling one. So
%%> 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.
%%
%%This I quite like. I assume that with this system, you don't bother with
%%Free Int, since the mp cost for long duration (>1 day) spells becomes
%%huge.
Correct. INT as a limiter on spirit spells, but since the sorcery spells
are more skill then just "umph" and away, I never bothered. This prevents
the lack of free int from getting out of hand.
%%For the use of ceremony, I take it you mean that the points obtained
%%from the ceremony table can be divided up to row shifts on the Duration,
%%Range etc table as the caster sees fit?
Actually, you would need a ceremony session for each aspect. If you spent
89 rounds each on Range and duration, each would get 10d6 added to the value
before squaring.
%%Would it be worth using the squaring system for Range etc also? That has never
%%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...)
I figured the same for consistancy. If you have no other means of targeting,
continent-spanning spell usage seems extreme. :)
This metheod allows you to sacrifice time to gain great effect, rather then
try and burn all your power. You could spend 1 round each on ceremony for
range and duration and get a R-4 and D-4 (on average) effect at about 7
less points of magic. But it means that spell is fired once every 3 rounds
instead of once a round. Your call. :)
-- Burton
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:51 EEST