From: boris (mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com)
Date: Fri 17 Sep 1993 - 17:58:02 EEST
Graeme writes:
> I don't think it would. In the games I've played, most PC's tend to
> cast their own (temporal) spellls on themselves, only casting it on
> other players in special circumstances. The main exceptions are attack
> spells such as Befuddle and Demoralize, and I accept that this modification
> would rule out tactics where one person with high POW Befuddles several
> enemies. I din't see this as a disadvantage; in my opinion it is more
> in keeping with the limited, personal nature of spirit magic.
I guess we play in different types of games. In my experience, PCs
share spells when they have the opportunity, and only allowing a given
learned spell to be cast once at any time would severely limit things.
Having one person Befuddle multiple people is much more rare, and then
usually limited to at most two or three targets.
>
> The path model: most descriptions of spirits. when they interact with
> the mundane plane, give them a fairly fixed location. I proposed the
> idea that one spirit = one spell at a time since it seemed a logical
> result of having spirits maintaining spells. Explaining it away with
> something like "paths" seems IMO very painful; logically one could then
> say that spirits could attack multiple scattered people in spirit
> combat, since a spirit's location is indeterminate.
Most spirits, when they interact with the mundane plane, must first
This is fundamentally different from the path model. In that, the spell
become visible, i.e. manifest on the mundane plane. Since they are no
longer on the spirit plane, their location is no longer indeterminate.
Hence they may only attack one person at a time. Ghosts, wraiths, and
other frequently encountered spirits are usually bound to a location or
item on the mundane plane, so they *do* have a fixed location (and they
still have to become visible to do anything).
spirit resides in the focus. In the act of "casting" the spirit spell
the spirit mage opens a doorway from the focus to the target, over which
the spirit may use it's power. The more MPs used to open the doorway/path,
the more power the spirit may exert, up to it's maximum.
It may be that such "paths" can only be opened by someone on the same
plane as the target; if this is the case, then magic spirits must be
visible before they can cast spells on mundane targets (which I think is
the case anyway).
> If we want to use the spirit = spell concept we should be willing
> to accept it will have some effects on the rules, rather than creating
> more troubles by explaining away any differences
I agree that the model used will affect the rules. However, I didn't
like the limitations of that interpretation, and tried to think of a valid
reinterpretation. One that, IMHO, doesn't create any more troubles and
solves a few that I considered unacceptable.
> > The basic mechanics of Spirit Magic, which, I think, most of us agree are
> > pretty good, needn't change, just their interpretation.
>
> The basic idea is fairly good (cheap, easy to use magic avaiable to
> everyone). I'm not sure the rules as they stand are the best possible
> way of doing it, and IMO rules and interpretation must interact.
I agree wholeheartedly. And I misspoke myself somewhat earlier. What I
meant is that I think that most of us like the current effects of most
of the spirit spells as written (with some few exceptions, such as
Befuddle). They are a relatively low powered, but useful set of spells.
The mechanics of casting are a different thing (I personally like Nick
Brooke's Pendragonesque method [roll 1d20 over points of spell and under
POW + {focusing skill}/5]), that I think will generate lots of discussion.
And they should be model driven, as you said.
-- Boris Mikey, aka |"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive Maurice Beyke | for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if mabeyke@ingr.com | you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." Intergraph doesn't want Nietzsche my opinions. 0, redistributed,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:29:59 EEST