From: Carl Fink (carlf@panix.com)
Date: Mon 24 Jan 1994 - 03:42:53 EET
David Cake writes:
>I hate the term Battle Magic a lot. The ONLY thing that it has got going for
>it is to appeal to the RQ2 conservatives. Common Magic is bearable, but I
>think that it remains Spirit Magic to me.
> Battle magic definately hails back to the dark old days (pre-RuneQues
>of D&D (obviously the term was invented before the publication of RQ1 :-), an
>thus in the dark ages) and reflects a very combat oriented idea of life. I
>guess that Humakti call their spells Battle Magic, but I can't see it being
>a term used by the Ernalda cultists.
> Why not retitle the 'Spirit Magic' chapter 'The Spirit World', and
>put shamans and Spirit Lore descriptions and spirit plane encounters, etc.
>in it?
What we wanted to do was have separate names for shaman-learned spells
D>Complete agreement. I presume that this Lorens comments mean that the linear
and priest-learned spells, even if they have the same mechanics. I
gather "battle magic" isn't acceptable. We can't use "spirit magic" for
both, though, for reasons I've already mentioned. Suggestions?
>duration and range made it from the first draft, and I too hate the linear
>long spells using the MPs of his giant bound Pow spirits, but PCs are much
>more limited). I think that sorcerers should have the potential to be very
>powerful, and the linear tables really cut their potential, and don't really
>aid play balance much until adept sorcerers start wandering around (at which
>point I think the sorcerers begin to lose vs. Shamans/Priests if stuck with
>the linear tables).
Does the word "bookkeeping" strike fear into your heart? It should.
This was my original suggestion, folks, and we tried it. The
bookkeeping involved in keeping track of sorcerors just became unwieldy.
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:31:44 EEST