How about erosion?
:-)
Symphony

--- In rpg-create@yahoogroups.com, Peter Knutsen <list@...> wrote:
>
> Sagatafl's magic item creation rules currently has separate
Enchantments
> to make an item immune to heat, heat/fire, frost,
lighting/electricity
> and so forth, and making it water-tight or able to float.
>
> Each is a separate Enchantment, often costing the minimum amount of
> Essence possible, 0.1, and that leaves no room for Essence cost
> discounts, even though that is an important part of the rules, i.e.
to
> encourage Enchanters to use mundane skills to craft their own items
(so
> that you make your own sword in the forge before you Enchant it,
rather
> than just buying the sword from a smith).
>
> It occured to me that I can change that by adding an "in-between
ruæes
> layer", a "pick system" where you select from a list of
Enchantments
> with raising Essence costs and Enchantment levels (=how difficult
the
> Enchantment is to create) and depending on your choice you get a
number
> of "picks".
>
> Each item immunity can then be given a cost in "picks".
>
> Firstly, this allows for a better discounting system to encouraging
> thematically correct choices and combinations of choices.
>
> Secondly, it allows a smoother Immunity system where I can replace
flat
> and binary immunity with degree-of-resistance, from Resistant over
Very
> Resistant to Starkly Resistant. An item Starkly Resistant to Heat
> wouldn't burn up, or even melt, evaporate or subliminate, even in
the
> core of a super-hot sun (although pressure effects mght destroy it,
if
> it isn't separately immune to those too).
>
> Thirdly, this makes more "room" for additional Item
> Immunities/Resistances to be added to the system, so I'll ask for
> suggestions here (and also elsewhere).
>
> Currently I have these:
>
> 1. Heat (actually separate heat and heat/fire entries, but I'll
just
> have heat from now on)
> 2. Frost
> 3. Wind (buffeting only; not sure how useful this is, but it is
there
> and should probably remain there)
> 4. Lightning (includes electricity)
> 5. Corrision (from rust, acids and alkalis)
> 6. Can float.
>
> Any suggestions for stuff to add to the list? Suggestions don't
have to
> fit into a Resistant/Very Resistant/Starkly Resistant
framework. "Can
> Float" doesn't, for instance.
>
>
>
> Secondly, there's another section in the rules which offers just
two
> very minor weapon abilities: Magic Weapon and Ghost Bite (plus an
entry
> combining the two at a slight ES cost discount).
>
> Magic Weapon enables the weapon to harm creatures that can only be
> harmed by magical weapons. There are other ways to enable a weapon
to
> harm such creatures, but if those ways aren't utilized then the
Magic
> Weapon Enchantment is an option.
>
> Ghost Bite enables the weapon to hurt incorporeal creatures.
>
> I'd like to replace this with a "pick" system letting the enchanter
buy
> picks and then use those picks to select one or more minor-but-
nifty
> weapon abilities. The problem is, that won't work when I have only
two
> abilities to offer.
>
> So can any of you suggest very minor weapon abilities that might be
nice
> to have? Very low-powered, and preferably also super-subtle,
meaning
> that people aren't likely to suspect that the weapon *is* magical
under
> most circumstances.
>
> --
> Peter Knutsen
> sagatafl.org
>

Have got a bunch of D10s, and have been testing the system a bit.

here are some revisions and a few more points.

--- In rpg-create@yahoogroups.com, "danhertogs" <meandeviance@...> wrote:
>
> I've been thinking some more.
>
> First let me outline a few 'fixed points' that are fundamental to what
> I want to make- I'd invite people to bear these in mind when replying,
> to avoid making comments which I'll just dismiss.
>
> 1: A single universal dice pool for all types of actions, inside and
> outside combat. Dice from this are rolled in groups, to acheive a
> variable number of successes.
>

This pool will be 6 D10s I think- 10^6 is 1,000,000, seems cool.

> 2: difference in ability is represented in how easy it is for each
> dice to achieve a hit, not in how many dice are rolled- so two people
> can put in the same effort (number of dice), but the one who is better
> is more likely to get successes.
>
> 3: Dice are usually rolled in opposed tests, pitting focus against
focus.
>
> Anything else is subject to consideration and change.
>
> Now for another chunk of thoughts, sorry if I repeat myself. This time
> I'll be trying to get down the core mechanic as far as I envision it:
>
> Characters- All actors in the game are characters, whether player or
> NPC. there should be little difference between them apart from
> complexity- ie. they all use the same universal rules.
>
> There are 3 rule elements to characters (excluding magic for now):
> These are STATS, SKILLS and PROS/CONS
>
> STATS are Strength, Toughness, Dexterity, Intelligence, Willpower and
> Charisma. These are defined at maturity (creation) and are hard to
> change. They range from 1 (poor) through to 2(average) up to 5
> (extreme) which is the maximum for most normal characters.
>

Tweaked a bit here- stats will be 2-5 at creation, but will go up to 7
or so later.

> SKILL is how good at something one is. There are many different
> specific areas of ability. The level of skill for one area, such as
> archery or swordfighting, is the average of the relevant stat and
> TRAINING. Training is a number from 0 to 5 or more, which is easier to
> increase than Stats.
>
> PROS (a shameless rip-off from edges and flaws in shadowrun, and many
> other systems) are much like feats in D&D, or the equivalent in most
> games. They are almost exclusively exceptions from the rules- ways in
> which a character works differently from others. They should rarely if
> ever be a simple bonus or improvement. For example, they might allow a
> character to base a skill or check on a different stat from usual.
>
> CONS are there to balance out PROS, and make things interesting. They
> may often be simple penalties. These will be linked to Pros in some
> clever way to avoid the kind of broken-ness and lame characters that
> could happen with edges and flaws in shadowrun.
>
> THE CORE MECHANIC:
> A check or action, such as an attack, uses a number of focus as chosen
> by the player. These dice are D10s, and they are rolled together. The
> character's relevant skill is added to each dice. Those that reach a
> total result of 10 are successes. These are usually compared to the
> successes from an opposing check made by the target, and the net
> difference determines the outcome.
>


One significant change- 0s on the dice will count as 0, not 10. This
means that someone who has a skill of 7 will have a 70% chance of
success per dice, and likewise for all skill levels.

'll post a sumary of combat basics with examples next.

An example of combat, ignoring complexities and unknowns.
In particular, I'll be ignoring movement for now.

Let's have a human warrior and an orc standing off. We'll call them
Tarek and Grull

1: Roll initiative (each round?) 1D10 + average of intelligence and
dexterity. Tarek rolls 7, and adds 3 (I3, Q4). Grull rolls 5, and adds
2 (I2,Q3).

Tarek acts first. Assuming weapons are already drawn, ad both
combatants are adjacent. He attacks Grull, using all 6 dice. Grull
declares that he will defend with all of his 6 dice

Tarek rolls 7,7,6,4,2,0. He adds 5 (his combat skill, based on 5
strength and 5 training) for 3 successes.

Grull rolls 9,3,2,2,1,0. He adds 3 (based on 4 strength and 2
training) for 1 success.

Grull rolls his dodge dice, a 9 (adding his quickness 3) for 1 success.

Tarek still hits with 1 net success.
He deals the damage of his longsword- 8 (strength +3) medium.

Grull attempts to resist the damage- he rolls dice equal to his
toughnes (4), vs the strength of the attack (8) minus his armour value
(3). He rolls 5,3,2,0- only one success. This stages the damage down
to light. Grull loses 1 dice for all actions until he is healed.

Damage table: L,M, ,S, , , ,D
This table is logarithmic, so each stage is double the last. This
means that once someone is wounded, another wound of the same level
will increase their damage to the next level (i.e. medium plus medium
equals serious), but then it would take another 2 wound of the same
level to increase their damage level. So a character being hit by a
longsword (assuming they don't resist the damage) would take medium
damage, then increase to serious, then serious +2, then Deadly (at
which point they pass out).

Modifiers for damage are simple penalties to focus- 1 per damage
level, so -1 at light, -2 at medium, -3 at serious.






--- In rpg-create@yahoogroups.com, "danhertogs" <meandeviance@...> wrote:
>
> Have got a bunch of D10s, and have been testing the system a bit.
>
> here are some revisions and a few more points.
>
> --- In rpg-create@yahoogroups.com, "danhertogs" <meandeviance@> wrote:
> >
> > I've been thinking some more.
> >
> > First let me outline a few 'fixed points' that are fundamental to what
> > I want to make- I'd invite people to bear these in mind when replying,
> > to avoid making comments which I'll just dismiss.
> >
> > 1: A single universal dice pool for all types of actions, inside and
> > outside combat. Dice from this are rolled in groups, to acheive a
> > variable number of successes.
> >
>
> This pool will be 6 D10s I think- 10^6 is 1,000,000, seems cool.
>
> > 2: difference in ability is represented in how easy it is for each
> > dice to achieve a hit, not in how many dice are rolled- so two people
> > can put in the same effort (number of dice), but the one who is better
> > is more likely to get successes.
> >
> > 3: Dice are usually rolled in opposed tests, pitting focus against
> focus.
> >
> > Anything else is subject to consideration and change.
> >
> > Now for another chunk of thoughts, sorry if I repeat myself. This time
> > I'll be trying to get down the core mechanic as far as I envision it:
> >
> > Characters- All actors in the game are characters, whether player or
> > NPC. there should be little difference between them apart from
> > complexity- ie. they all use the same universal rules.
> >
> > There are 3 rule elements to characters (excluding magic for now):
> > These are STATS, SKILLS and PROS/CONS
> >
> > STATS are Strength, Toughness, Dexterity, Intelligence, Willpower and
> > Charisma. These are defined at maturity (creation) and are hard to
> > change. They range from 1 (poor) through to 2(average) up to 5
> > (extreme) which is the maximum for most normal characters.
> >
>
> Tweaked a bit here- stats will be 2-5 at creation, but will go up to 7
> or so later.
>
> > SKILL is how good at something one is. There are many different
> > specific areas of ability. The level of skill for one area, such as
> > archery or swordfighting, is the average of the relevant stat and
> > TRAINING. Training is a number from 0 to 5 or more, which is easier to
> > increase than Stats.
> >
> > PROS (a shameless rip-off from edges and flaws in shadowrun, and many
> > other systems) are much like feats in D&D, or the equivalent in most
> > games. They are almost exclusively exceptions from the rules- ways in
> > which a character works differently from others. They should rarely if
> > ever be a simple bonus or improvement. For example, they might allow a
> > character to base a skill or check on a different stat from usual.
> >
> > CONS are there to balance out PROS, and make things interesting. They
> > may often be simple penalties. These will be linked to Pros in some
> > clever way to avoid the kind of broken-ness and lame characters that
> > could happen with edges and flaws in shadowrun.
> >
> > THE CORE MECHANIC:
> > A check or action, such as an attack, uses a number of focus as chosen
> > by the player. These dice are D10s, and they are rolled together. The
> > character's relevant skill is added to each dice. Those that reach a
> > total result of 10 are successes. These are usually compared to the
> > successes from an opposing check made by the target, and the net
> > difference determines the outcome.
> >
>
>
> One significant change- 0s on the dice will count as 0, not 10. This
> means that someone who has a skill of 7 will have a 70% chance of
> success per dice, and likewise for all skill levels.
>
> 'll post a sumary of combat basics with examples next.
>

I'm not a huge fan of dice pools and your example seems a little to
complicated for my tastes.  I do have a couple of questions, however:
1)During the same round, after the attack is resolved, can the orc
act?  Can the human react to that attack?
2)If not, is it possible for a character with a lower initiative to
take proactive steps or must they always react?

Todd

Good points, thanks for bringing them up.

Dice can only  be used once in the round, so if the orc used all of
its dice defending itself, it could not then take other actions later.
However the terms attack and defend are misleading- in this example
there is no difference between who attacks who- just whoever gets the
most successes scores a hit.

To answer your second point then, well a character with lower
initiative can choose how they spend their dice. If they want to take
other actions they'll have to save some dice. This means that in
general characters who are more skillful can afford to defend with
some dice, then take other actions with the rest.

I recognise that this is very diferent to simpler systems like D&D,
where the only link between different characters' actions is if one
might be killed before they can act. However it's much closer to
reality- in any conceivable situation someone who is overpowered can
only expect to take actions apart from defending themself by risking
taking damage.

One last point- it makes little difference if the orc were to go
first- as noted before, if it attacks, the situation would be
identicle, and if it opted to take other actions then its defence
would suffer.

Note that movement is not yet factored in- movement would require
dice, but would take place in a second phase after other actions, to
avoid the "I charge 60 feet and attack before you can loose an arrow"
situation.

--- In rpg-create@yahoogroups.com, "Todd" <thirdkingdom@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not a huge fan of dice pools and your example seems a little to
> complicated for my tastes.  I do have a couple of questions, however:
> 1)During the same round, after the attack is resolved, can the orc
> act?  Can the human react to that attack?
> 2)If not, is it possible for a character with a lower initiative to
> take proactive steps or must they always react?
>
> Todd
>

--- On Sun, 2/15/09, danhertogs <meandeviance@...> wrote:




Dice can only  be used once in the round, so if the orc used all of

its dice defending itself, it could not then take other actions later.

However the terms attack and defend are misleading- in this example

there is no difference between who attacks who- just whoever gets the

most successes scores a hit.





I guess my question should have been "what happens if one of the combatants is
only interested in defending."  I understand the logic behind what you are
saying, and in fact have toyed with that idea myself a long time ago.  What
convinced me not to use it is that it seems like one of the combatants will
always hit the other, when in reality that does not always occur.  It is always
possible for both to miss, or both to hit.  Would the orc for instance, vastly
outmatched, be able to concentrate fully on defense, not trying to hit the human
but instead hold him at bay until his other orc friends arrived?Todd






















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In rpg-create@yahoogroups.com, Todd <thirdkingdom@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 2/15/09, danhertogs <meandeviance@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Dice can only  be used once in the round, so if the orc used all of
>
> its dice defending itself, it could not then take other actions later.
>
> However the terms attack and defend are misleading- in this example
>
> there is no difference between who attacks who- just whoever gets the
>
> most successes scores a hit.
>
>
>
>
>
> I guess my question should have been "what happens if one of the
combatants is only interested in defending."  I understand the logic
behind what you are saying, and in fact have toyed with that idea
myself a long time ago.  What convinced me not to use it is that it
seems like one of the combatants will always hit the other, when in
reality that does not always occur.  It is always possible for both to
miss, or both to hit.  Would the orc for instance, vastly outmatched,
be able to concentrate fully on defense, not trying to hit the human
but instead hold him at bay until his other orc friends arrived?Todd
>
>
>


Another good point.
1st, in fact it is possible and highly likely that no-one hits- If
both score equal successes, no-one hits. if one hits, but with only
one success, then the other can dodge to avoid the blow. If you use a
shield, you gain an extra dice, so can potentially dodge hits which
succeed by 2. In fact, having done the maths, the chance of a hit
being scored, even with a stronger character vs a a weaker, is less
than 50%.

Whether I should add some bonus for someone purely defending, I don't
know. I'm not at all sure that purely defending actually makes you
less likely to be hit- hence the phrase "the best form of defence is
offence". I shall ask some friends with more martial experience and
recconsider.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Having consulted on the matter, I will add a full defence option.

A more important point is complexity- I'm uneasy having an attack
roll, opposed roll, a dodge roll and then a resistance roll.

I'm tempted to remove the dodge roll, but at the moment it serves
several important functions-
1- making nimble characters harder to hit.
2- Incorporating shields (these would give an extra dice)
3- Increasing the miss chance against characters not actively avoiding
damage.

As things stand, dodge dice are only 1 or 2 (with a shield), so could
probably be rolled with attack/opposed dice, using a different colour.
I'm still uneasy though.

--- In rpg-create@yahoogroups.com, "danhertogs" <meandeviance@...> wrote:
>
> --- In rpg-create@yahoogroups.com, Todd <thirdkingdom@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Sun, 2/15/09, danhertogs <meandeviance@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dice can only  be used once in the round, so if the orc used all of
> >
> > its dice defending itself, it could not then take other actions later.
> >
> > However the terms attack and defend are misleading- in this example
> >
> > there is no difference between who attacks who- just whoever gets the
> >
> > most successes scores a hit.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I guess my question should have been "what happens if one of the
> combatants is only interested in defending."  I understand the logic
> behind what you are saying, and in fact have toyed with that idea
> myself a long time ago.  What convinced me not to use it is that it
> seems like one of the combatants will always hit the other, when in
> reality that does not always occur.  It is always possible for both to
> miss, or both to hit.  Would the orc for instance, vastly outmatched,
> be able to concentrate fully on defense, not trying to hit the human
> but instead hold him at bay until his other orc friends arrived?Todd
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Another good point.
> 1st, in fact it is possible and highly likely that no-one hits- If
> both score equal successes, no-one hits. if one hits, but with only
> one success, then the other can dodge to avoid the blow. If you use a
> shield, you gain an extra dice, so can potentially dodge hits which
> succeed by 2. In fact, having done the maths, the chance of a hit
> being scored, even with a stronger character vs a a weaker, is less
> than 50%.
>
> Whether I should add some bonus for someone purely defending, I don't
> know. I'm not at all sure that purely defending actually makes you
> less likely to be hit- hence the phrase "the best form of defence is
> offence". I shall ask some friends with more martial experience and
> recconsider.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

--- On Wed, 2/18/09, danhertogs <meandeviance@...> wrote:
From: danhertogs <meandeviance@...>
Subject: [rpg-create] Re: Thoughts ... (Focus)- example combat
To: rpg-create@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2009, 8:08 AM












             Having consulted on the matter, I will add a full defence option.



A more important point is complexity- I'm uneasy having an attack

roll, opposed roll, a dodge roll and then a resistance roll.



I'm tempted to remove the dodge roll, but at the moment it serves

several important functions-

1- making nimble characters harder to hit.

2- Incorporating shields (these would give an extra dice)

3- Increasing the miss chance against characters not actively avoiding

damage.



As things stand, dodge dice are only 1 or 2 (with a shield), so could

probably be rolled with attack/opposed dice, using a different colour.

I'm still uneasy though.



You might want to consider removing the shield roll from the dodge action.  I
don't really see how the two are connected; in theory using a shield would make
it harder to dodge an attack, not easier.  I have set up the Third Kingdom to
use shields (and armor) as follows:Armor does affect a target's defense.  It
instead absorbs damage from successful hits.  Therefore, the heavier the armor
the easier it is to hit a target, although heavier armor absorbs more
damage.When used defensively shields increase defensive Challenges by blocking
attacks.  In general melee defensive maneuvers can only be used against other
melee attacks; the Dodge skill can be used against any form of attack (melee,
ranged, etc.).  However, shields can be used to block ranged attacks, although
doing so does not add the weapon skill Rank to the defensive maneuver.Todd

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dan,

In looking at what you have done so far, I just feel that there
is way too much rolling of dice to get just one round of combat
accomplished.

I recommend that you try making defense as automatic as possible.
I'd suggest looking at a few options:

1. Have the value of armor directly take off from the attacker's
skill rating (his bonus to the dice he's rolling). This would
reduce his ability to "hit" (do damage) to the defender and would
be passive on the defender's side.

2. Have shield blocks, parries and dodges be active defenses and
these would take action dice from the defender to perform. The
defender could forgo an active defense if his armor was
sufficient and instead just do an attack of his own -- or split
some dice out for attack and the rest for defense.

3. You would need a mechanism where adding more armor will make
you less agile and so reduce your ability to dodge and/or parry.
But, if you are just not an agile character to start with, going
the armor route would be best. On the other hand, it should allow
very agile characters, as long as they stay away from heavy
armor, to be effective at dodging and parrying attacks. Shield
blocks would be better suited to characters with the strength to
use the shield, rather then the agility to dodge or parry.

4. You could even go more extreme (much like I do with the MEAG
rules) and have die rolls only for attacks and all defenses
(based on the skill of the defender in those defensive
techniques) are seen as just reductions to the attacker's skill.
Then the attacker's (whomever that is at the moment) roll could
completely determine if the defender is "hit" and for how much
damage. A system like this speeds up combat dramatically.

Just some ideas.

Brian

danhertogs wrote:
>
>
> Having consulted on the matter, I will add a full defence option.
>
> A more important point is complexity- I'm uneasy having an attack
> roll, opposed roll, a dodge roll and then a resistance roll.
>
> I'm tempted to remove the dodge roll, but at the moment it serves
> several important functions-
> 1- making nimble characters harder to hit.
> 2- Incorporating shields (these would give an extra dice)
> 3- Increasing the miss chance against characters not actively avoiding
> damage.
>
> As things stand, dodge dice are only 1 or 2 (with a shield), so could
> probably be rolled with attack/opposed dice, using a different colour.
> I'm still uneasy though.
>
> --- In rpg-create@yahoogroups.com <mailto:rpg-create%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "danhertogs" <meandeviance@...> wrote:
>  >
>  > --- In rpg-create@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:rpg-create%40yahoogroups.com>, Todd <thirdkingdom@> wrote:
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > --- On Sun, 2/15/09, danhertogs <meandeviance@> wrote:
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > Dice can only be used once in the round, so if the orc used all of
>  > >
>  > > its dice defending itself, it could not then take other actions later.
>  > >
>  > > However the terms attack and defend are misleading- in this example
>  > >
>  > > there is no difference between who attacks who- just whoever gets the
>  > >
>  > > most successes scores a hit.
>  > >
>  > > I guess my question should have been "what happens if one of the
>  > combatants is only interested in defending."  I understand the logic
>  > behind what you are saying, and in fact have toyed with that idea
>  > myself a long time ago.  What convinced me not to use it is that it
>  > seems like one of the combatants will always hit the other, when in
>  > reality that does not always occur.  It is always possible for both to
>  > miss, or both to hit.  Would the orc for instance, vastly outmatched,
>  > be able to concentrate fully on defense, not trying to hit the human
>  > but instead hold him at bay until his other orc friends arrived?Todd
>  > >
>  > >
>  > Another good point.
>  > 1st, in fact it is possible and highly likely that no-one hits- If
>  > both score equal successes, no-one hits. if one hits, but with only
>  > one success, then the other can dodge to avoid the blow. If you use a
>  > shield, you gain an extra dice, so can potentially dodge hits which
>  > succeed by 2. In fact, having done the maths, the chance of a hit
>  > being scored, even with a stronger character vs a a weaker, is less
>  > than 50%.
>  >
>  > Whether I should add some bonus for someone purely defending, I don't
>  > know. I'm not at all sure that purely defending actually makes you
>  > less likely to be hit- hence the phrase "the best form of defence is
>  > offence". I shall ask some friends with more martial experience and
>  > recconsider.
>  >

I got the D&D 3rd Edition Revised Player's Handbook from the library
today. I'll be getting the PHB II and the Spell Compendium (and the DMG
II) from there later on, but for now I only have the PHB.

  From a game design point of view, what spells should I check out? There
are many, many hundreds and it isn't realistic to read all of them. Most
of them are boring anyway, being standard buffs or standard
damage-causing spells.

Which ones are interesting?

By interesting, I mean anything worth reading up on, for somebody who
has an interest in RPG design.

It could be oddball spells of the kind you wouldn't expect to find in a
dungeon crawling-focused system, such as the Awaken spell (which I
actually knew about already, having discovered it on a previous occasion
some years ago). That's a perfectly reasonable spell to have in Ars
Magica or Sagatafl or GURPS, but highly atypical for D&D.

It can also mean problematic spells, or problematic types of spells.
Either it can be spells that are most often problematic in other RPGs
but which the designers of 3.0 or 3.5 have fixed so that they no longer
cause real problems, or it can mean spells that are badly designed or
spells that are generally problematic which haven't been fixed or solved
in D&D 3.5.

Or it can mean fun and interesting spells that does something different
without belonging to the oddball "what the eff is that doing on
D&D"-category the same way Awaken does.

Or spells worth stealing. I've long been meaning to steal the Shillelagh
spell and put it into Sagatafl. Just hasn't got around to doing it yet.


Also note that if the spells were organized differently, I wouldn't need
to ask this. GURPS has spells organized by Colleges. Sagatafl uses a
rather similar Realms system. Ars Magica organizes spells by first Form
and then Technique (or the other way around?). D&D 3/3.5 just does them
alphabetically, which means I can't skip the boring categories. And the
PHB isn't (as far as I know) available as a hypertext

(Also almost all the spells in D&D3 have unique names. One buff Cleric
spell is named this, the next higher level buff spell is named something
completely different. At least in Sagatafl I go with extremely
predictable and boring spell names, such as Fire Bolt I, Fire Bolt II,
Fire Bolt III.)

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org

> Also note that if the spells were organized differently, I wouldn't
> need to ask this. GURPS has spells organized by Colleges. Sagatafl
> uses a rather similar Realms system. Ars Magica organizes spells by
> first Form and then Technique (or the other way around?). D&D 3/3.5
> just does them alphabetically, which means I can't skip the boring
> categories. And the PHB isn't (as far as I know) available as a
> hypertext

I haven't been playing D&D for a while so I can't really comment on the
spells (though your post kinda itches me to take a more thorough look,
there might be something interesting in there).

In anycase, take a look at http://www.d20srd.org/
They have the complete SRD in hypertext, plus additional material from
Unearthed Arcana (and a site search engine IIRC).

Mauro

I fundamentally agree, but one quick qualifier- I'm not aiming for
combat to be quick and easy like D&D for example, where you want to
get through tens of rounds per hour at least- I'm aiming for a more
deadly, realistic and gritty feel- you go into a fight knowing you
might not come out, so don't expect multiple fights in a row as the
staple of the game.

However, it is too complex at the moment. As mentioned before, I also
need a meaningful active defense. I think that taking these two
points, I can eliminate the automatice dodge dice, or perhaps just
have one die free if no active dice are being used. I'll add a bonus
for active defence, and then all defence will be active. Because of
the bonus, it might even pay to spend some dice defending, and some
attacking.

I'm not keen on the other options- armour as AC makes almost no sense,
apart from some small weapons vs the best armour.

Encumbrance will be added in. I'll probably lift the rules from my
last system and see how they fit here.

I'm reluctant to separate shield and dodge, because of the added
complexity. Obviously shields will encumber. Maybe it will be as
simple as basing the active defence on your shield if you have one, or
on dex if you don't.

I'll need to run these thoughts through some calculations, to make
sure that people don't allways hit/miss.



--- In rpg-create@yahoogroups.com, Brian Gross <imposteraz@...> wrote:
>
> Dan,
>
> In looking at what you have done so far, I just feel that there
> is way too much rolling of dice to get just one round of combat
> accomplished.
>
> I recommend that you try making defense as automatic as possible.
> I'd suggest looking at a few options:
>
> 1. Have the value of armor directly take off from the attacker's
> skill rating (his bonus to the dice he's rolling). This would
> reduce his ability to "hit" (do damage) to the defender and would
> be passive on the defender's side.
>
> 2. Have shield blocks, parries and dodges be active defenses and
> these would take action dice from the defender to perform. The
> defender could forgo an active defense if his armor was
> sufficient and instead just do an attack of his own -- or split
> some dice out for attack and the rest for defense.
>
> 3. You would need a mechanism where adding more armor will make
> you less agile and so reduce your ability to dodge and/or parry.
> But, if you are just not an agile character to start with, going
> the armor route would be best. On the other hand, it should allow
> very agile characters, as long as they stay away from heavy
> armor, to be effective at dodging and parrying attacks. Shield
> blocks would be better suited to characters with the strength to
> use the shield, rather then the agility to dodge or parry.
>
> 4. You could even go more extreme (much like I do with the MEAG
> rules) and have die rolls only for attacks and all defenses
> (based on the skill of the defender in those defensive
> techniques) are seen as just reductions to the attacker's skill.
> Then the attacker's (whomever that is at the moment) roll could
> completely determine if the defender is "hit" and for how much
> damage. A system like this speeds up combat dramatically.
>
> Just some ideas.
>
> Brian
>
> danhertogs wrote:
> >
> >
> > Having consulted on the matter, I will add a full defence option.
> >
> > A more important point is complexity- I'm uneasy having an attack
> > roll, opposed roll, a dodge roll and then a resistance roll.
> >
> > I'm tempted to remove the dodge roll, but at the moment it serves
> > several important functions-
> > 1- making nimble characters harder to hit.
> > 2- Incorporating shields (these would give an extra dice)
> > 3- Increasing the miss chance against characters not actively avoiding
> > damage.
> >
> > As things stand, dodge dice are only 1 or 2 (with a shield), so could
> > probably be rolled with attack/opposed dice, using a different colour.
> > I'm still uneasy though.
> >
> > --- In rpg-create@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:rpg-create%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "danhertogs" <meandeviance@> wrote:
> >  >
> >  > --- In rpg-create@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:rpg-create%40yahoogroups.com>, Todd <thirdkingdom@> wrote:
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > --- On Sun, 2/15/09, danhertogs <meandeviance@> wrote:
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > Dice can only be used once in the round, so if the orc used
all of
> >  > >
> >  > > its dice defending itself, it could not then take other
actions later.
> >  > >
> >  > > However the terms attack and defend are misleading- in this
example
> >  > >
> >  > > there is no difference between who attacks who- just whoever
gets the
> >  > >
> >  > > most successes scores a hit.
> >  > >
> >  > > I guess my question should have been "what happens if one of the
> >  > combatants is only interested in defending."  I understand the
logic
> >  > behind what you are saying, and in fact have toyed with that idea
> >  > myself a long time ago.  What convinced me not to use it is that it
> >  > seems like one of the combatants will always hit the other, when in
> >  > reality that does not always occur.  It is always possible for
both to
> >  > miss, or both to hit.  Would the orc for instance, vastly
outmatched,
> >  > be able to concentrate fully on defense, not trying to hit the
human
> >  > but instead hold him at bay until his other orc friends
arrived?Todd
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > Another good point.
> >  > 1st, in fact it is possible and highly likely that no-one hits- If
> >  > both score equal successes, no-one hits. if one hits, but with only
> >  > one success, then the other can dodge to avoid the blow. If you
use a
> >  > shield, you gain an extra dice, so can potentially dodge hits which
> >  > succeed by 2. In fact, having done the maths, the chance of a hit
> >  > being scored, even with a stronger character vs a a weaker, is less
> >  > than 50%.
> >  >
> >  > Whether I should add some bonus for someone purely defending, I
don't
> >  > know. I'm not at all sure that purely defending actually makes you
> >  > less likely to be hit- hence the phrase "the best form of
defence is
> >  > offence". I shall ask some friends with more martial experience and
> >  > recconsider.
> >  >
>

--- In rpg-create@yahoogroups.com, "danhertogs" <meandeviance@...> wrote:
>
> I fundamentally agree, but one quick qualifier- I'm not aiming for
> combat to be quick and easy like D&D for example, where you want to
> get through tens of rounds per hour at least- I'm aiming for a more
> deadly, realistic and gritty feel- you go into a fight knowing you
> might not come out, so don't expect multiple fights in a row as the
> staple of the game.
>
      It's interesting that you say that, because on the surface it
seems like you're aiming to "simpler" than D&D in that combat between
two individuals can be resolved in a single "turn".  Like I wrote
earlier, die pool mechanics are not my strong point, but it seems to
me that you could make it more realistic and gritty by having the
participants start out by using a fraction of their available dice,
and depending on the outcome, adjusting their strategy by adding
additional dice to perform additional maneuvers or actions within
their turn.  The result of that would be that an incredibly skilled
swordsman, for instance, would have to use only a few of his available
dice while his less skilled opponent would be forced to use more, but
the dice used are built up throughout the turn.  For instance:
1)Desired actions are stated and participants each use one die.
2)The initial results do not indicate a successful hit or parry but
the way the combat is going.  Based upon the results, each participant
can decide whether or not they want to add an additional die roll.
3)And so forth.  I don't know how the system works, but there could be
skills that add or subtract modifiers to individual die results, such
as parry, riposte, feint, full attack, full defense, etc. that help to
bring realism to an exchange within a turn.  Part of the problem with
D&D is that the system encourages a one swing per attack mentality
whereas a successful attack is more likely a succession of feints,
jabs, parries, etc.  Compare the combat in Zelazny's Amber novels to
standard D&D.  Or better yet, watch some fencing to get an idea of the
complicated strategies involved (better watch it in slow motion).

Todd

--- In rpg-create@yahoogroups.com, "Todd" <thirdkingdom@...> wrote:
>
> --- In rpg-create@yahoogroups.com, "danhertogs" <meandeviance@>
wrote:
> >
> > I fundamentally agree, but one quick qualifier- I'm not aiming for
> > combat to be quick and easy like D&D for example, where you want
> > to get through tens of rounds per hour at least- I'm aiming for a
> > more deadly, realistic and gritty feel- you go into a fight
> > knowing you might not come out, so don't expect multiple fights
> > in a row as the staple of the game.
> >
>      It's interesting that you say that, because on the surface it
> seems like you're aiming to "simpler" than D&D in that combat
> between two individuals can be resolved in a single "turn".  Like I
> wrote earlier, die pool mechanics are not my strong point, but it
> seems to me that you could make it more realistic and gritty by
> having the participants start out by using a fraction of their
> available dice, and depending on the outcome, adjusting their
> strategy by adding additional dice to perform additional maneuvers
> or actions within their turn.

This (and the realistic, gritty feeling) also goes in the direction
of 'The Riddle of Steel' RPG, which you might want to check out.

Basically, each combatant has a Melee Pool which he can access to
attack, parry and create interesting and tactical maneuvers. The
results are depending on the type of attack VS. type of parry used
and the body zone hit. It is a neat system, which rewards tactical
plays (sadly, on the players' part rather than on the Characters'
part, but I have a couple of ideas on how to fix that for OMNIA).
Since Pools and gritty is the direction you're trying to go, I
suggest you check it out.

Mauro

>
>  From a game design point of view, what spells should I check out?
There
> are many, many hundreds and it isn't realistic to read all of them.
Most
> of them are boring anyway, being standard buffs or standard
> damage-causing spells.
>
> Which ones are interesting?

In my opinion, none of them.  The attack spells especially, they all
seem to be varying die rolls with some colorful description.  When you
get right down to, all of the spells are vehicles of mechanical
manipulations of the rules; the description does not so much matter.
That being said, I have always found the cantrips (sadly, not in 3.5)
to be the most interesting because mechanically they don't do much but
provide some interesting effects.

Todd

I agrees. I liked 3.5 a lot, but I was disapointed when I compared it with older
editions. Most new spells are just modifiers and game-focussed, why older
versions were more linked to tradionnal magic. Duration have been drastically
reduced, fitting to a succession of spells-for-a-fight than spells for practical
situations. That was one of the reasons I get back to Moldway and even 1974
od&d.

The Unearthed Aracan 1st ed. cantrips are very funny and useful for low magic.

Nico

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Todd
   To: rpg-create@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 9:12 PM
   Subject: [rpg-create] Re: Interesting spells in the D&D 3.5 PHB I, from a game
design point of view?



   >
   > From a game design point of view, what spells should I check out?
   There
   > are many, many hundreds and it isn't realistic to read all of them.
   Most
   > of them are boring anyway, being standard buffs or standard
   > damage-causing spells.
   >
   > Which ones are interesting?

   In my opinion, none of them. The attack spells especially, they all
   seem to be varying die rolls with some colorful description. When you
   get right down to, all of the spells are vehicles of mechanical
   manipulations of the rules; the description does not so much matter.
   That being said, I have always found the cantrips (sadly, not in 3.5)
   to be the most interesting because mechanically they don't do much but
   provide some interesting effects.

   Todd




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mauro wrote:
> I also thought of something along the same lines, that is a weapon
> which never (under normal circumstances) gets stuck or slips away
> while you're drawing it. If you use a Drawing Roll, the magical
> effect could turn the Roll into a Safe Roll, making all Fumbles into
> failures/partial successes. This is useful and not eminently magical.
> Obviously this power would fail if the weapon is somehow tied (as
> with peace-bonds) or blocked away.

I've already covered that with the "Confer Talent with the Fast-Draw
skill" Enchantment.

> Also, semi-resistance to water, that is the weapon cannot float, but
> rain and water and humidity do not damage it (particularly useful for
> bowstrings and bows in general).

The only new Item Toughness I've been able to come up with, so far, in
addition to the ones I already have, is Resist Rot, which makes the item
more resistant towards rot and fungi. For metallic weapons there's
already Resist Corrosion.

> Can't hink of anything else I would really consider minor off the top
> of my head. Most of what's being proposed here would be significant
> effects in OMNIA, but that's just me and my preference for 'subtle'
> magic :)

I sometimes have to remind myself, in the context of the Minor Magical
Weapon Enchantments, that it is okay for the effects to *be* magical and
supernatural, as long as they are reasonably subtle. They do cost
Essence, permanently, after all.


I'll reply to all the other posts soon, but for now I'd just like to add
that this isn't a new system. It has been under development since some
point in 2001. I've got a lot of Enchantments in the system already,
most of the "bases" are well covered, so I'm looking for two things:

Edge cases, obscure oddball-but-still-useful stuff that some characters
- even if they are non-adventurers and are not player characters - might
want to spend Essence on. All the non-obvious stuff.

Secondly, stuff that I have so far tended to ignore - and with good
reason - because it fell below the resolution level of the coarsegrained
Essence system, where one cannot spend Essence in quanta smaller than
0.1 (and with most magic-using PCs being born with ES budgets between
4.0 ES and 8.0 ES, and an average person born with 3.0).

With the "picks" system I can sub-divide Essence slightly more finely,
which opens up for minor stuff that previously would have been absurd
because nobody would pay 0.2 or even 0.1 ES for it, but with 1 single
pick usually costing a bit less than 0.1 ES, I can offer some minor
beneficial Enchantments - I just can't think of a what they should be,
except for those I've already mentioned in the OP.


There's also in-game pertinence to consider. A weapon that needs
sharpening more rarely is already handled, indirectly, via increased
Durability, and an Enchantment that gives only that as an absolut effect
- as in no sharpening required, ever - even for a very low ES cost,
would not be attractive to players, because I really can't imagine any
campaign where it matters whether a weapon needs periodic sharpening or not.

That's not to say it shouldn't be in the system. It probably should.

The problem is, the list of Minor Enchantments then effectively becomes
divided up into two lists, even if the divide is implicit: One list is
those Enchantments that player characters might choose from, and the
other list is those Enchantments that player characters would never
take, because no matter how low the cost is, it is still an "opportunity
cost" and the Essence could always be better spent on something that
actually has a non-zero chance of mattering in play.

On one hand, I'd like the total list of available Enchanments to be
long, but on the other hand, I care especially about the first
sub-division of the list, those entries on the list that there is a
non-zero probability of players actually having their characters select.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org

Big list...
but Check out the following spells:
Permanency (the cost to make a spell effect permanent is a game
design issue)
Fabricate (it's not enough to know the spell, you have to have the
craft skill)
Arcane Mark (a couple spells pre-requisite the Arcane Mark if my
memory serves)
Summon Planar Ally (to be effective requires other spells to be in
place)

Gaseous Form
Evard's Black Tentacles (not just a damage dealing spell, a grappling
spell)
Flaming Sphere (mundane effect can extinguish!)
Melf's Acid Arrow (bypasses spell resistance)
Otiluke's Resilient Sphere (compare to Wall of Force)
Firestorm (damage excludes a creature type!)
Wall of Stone and Wall of Iron (actual effect is permanent)
Geas and Suggestion (open-ended duration of magical effect)
Control Weather (can't easily be dispeled, rain can't be seen through
with True Seeing!)

if Shillelagh is interesting, look at
Spiritual Weapon
Changestaff
Spellstaff

The spell list isn't hugely different from previous editions of D&D,
obviously.
Every system has to have basic damage dealing effects: Fireball,
Lightening Bolt, Cone of Cold, etc.
3.5 butchered the Haste spell in my opinion.
I prefer the Awaken spell from 3.0 which allows you to affect
familiars.

It's a big spell list...
If you want to see some serious GM fudgery in action compare Miracle
to Wish.
The implication in Miracle is that the cleric's diety might or might
not grant the Miracle based solely on the GM's decretion.  Miracle
should be banned or rewritten to match the power of Wish.
:-)
Symphony

--- In rpg-create@yahoogroups.com, Peter Knutsen <list@...> wrote:
>
> I got the D&D 3rd Edition Revised Player's Handbook from the
library
> today. I'll be getting the PHB II and the Spell Compendium (and the
DMG
> II) from there later on, but for now I only have the PHB.
>
>  From a game design point of view, what spells should I check out?
There
> are many, many hundreds and it isn't realistic to read all of them.
Most
> of them are boring anyway, being standard buffs or standard
> damage-causing spells.
>
> Which ones are interesting?
>
> By interesting, I mean anything worth reading up on, for somebody
who
> has an interest in RPG design.
>
> It could be oddball spells of the kind you wouldn't expect to find
in a
> dungeon crawling-focused system, such as the Awaken spell (which I
> actually knew about already, having discovered it on a previous
occasion
> some years ago). That's a perfectly reasonable spell to have in Ars
> Magica or Sagatafl or GURPS, but highly atypical for D&D.
>
> It can also mean problematic spells, or problematic types of
spells.
> Either it can be spells that are most often problematic in other
RPGs
> but which the designers of 3.0 or 3.5 have fixed so that they no
longer
> cause real problems, or it can mean spells that are badly designed
or
> spells that are generally problematic which haven't been fixed or
solved
> in D&D 3.5.
>
> Or it can mean fun and interesting spells that does something
different
> without belonging to the oddball "what the eff is that doing on
> D&D"-category the same way Awaken does.
>
> Or spells worth stealing. I've long been meaning to steal the
Shillelagh
> spell and put it into Sagatafl. Just hasn't got around to doing it
yet.
>
>
> Also note that if the spells were organized differently, I wouldn't
need
> to ask this. GURPS has spells organized by Colleges. Sagatafl uses
a
> rather similar Realms system. Ars Magica organizes spells by first
Form
> and then Technique (or the other way around?). D&D 3/3.5 just does
them
> alphabetically, which means I can't skip the boring categories. And
the
> PHB isn't (as far as I know) available as a hypertext
>
> (Also almost all the spells in D&D3 have unique names. One buff
Cleric
> spell is named this, the next higher level buff spell is named
something
> completely different. At least in Sagatafl I go with extremely
> predictable and boring spell names, such as Fire Bolt I, Fire Bolt
II,
> Fire Bolt III.)
>
> --
> Peter Knutsen
> sagatafl.org
>

> Fabricate (it's not enough to know the spell, you have
> to have the
> craft skill)

      I have to say, I like the concept of requiring skill usage along with
simply casting the spell.  For instance, I have set up illusion spells in the
Third Kingdom such that the caster must make the appropriate skill Challenge --
Craeft Illusion -- in order to successfully create a real seeming image.  Its
not just enough to cast the spell, you have to be able to shape the energy
effectively.

Todd

I've also posted this to the FFRE-Discussion mailing list:


<
http://groups.google.dk/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/browse_thread/thread/00de02b27d6\
4abf0?hl=en#
  >

Since there are no "constructs" in the Árth setting, the part that
really interests me is the one about what happens if you try to cast
Dispel Magic on an Undead or an Elemental, or for that matter a Were.

Likewise, what if such a creature enters a Magic Suppression-Zone. Or
what if a Familiar does?


Even if Dispel Magic does nothing against permanent magic (and I think
that should be the case), there would still be other MetaMagic spells,
perhaps called Negate Magic, which were specifically Invented for the
purpose of temporarily nullifying the effects of magic items.

What effects would such spells have on Undead, Weres, Elementals? Would
it differ based on whether the Undead is temporary (as most Minor
Undeads are, i.e. zombies and skeletons) or permanent (meaning that
Essence has been paid).

Ghouls are sort of living, in a way, since they must eat flesh to
sustain themselves. Should they be classified as "pseudo-living" because
of this? Vampires too, are sort-of alive.

I haven't actually gotten that far in terms of the magic system design,
but those are important questions.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org

All interesting questions!

I think it's all a matter of, as you say, whether Essence has
been invested in the item/being. This Essence would/should be a
permanent, self-contained core of magic. This core would then
retain was makes that item/being what it is and so can't be taken
away casually.

If the item/being is thrust into a Null Magic area, that would
remove any abilities or attributes the item/being would have that
require external Magic to support, be the basic nature of it
would not be lost.

Therefore, a permanent magic item or a "permanent" Undead
(Vampire, Ghoul, Wraith, etc.) would lose whatever outward
abilities rely on Magic from the environment, but these would be
restored once environmental Magic levels are back to normal.

The big kicker here is not areas of Null Magic, but areas of
Negative Magic -- ones that actively drain Magical Essence from
whatever enters. In this case, depending on how fast the draining
occurs, I could see "permanent" Magical items/beings actually
being "destroyed" -- reduced to just non-magical physical
components.

If such an environment existed, it would also drain Essence from
Mages, too.  They might be able to regain Essence once they left
that environment, but you could be cruel and say that once their
Essence goes to zero in such an environment, what actually makes
them Mages goes away, too.

You could then apply these concepts to Dispel Magic, Drain Magic,
Negate Magic, etc. spells, depending on the effect desired.

Brian

Peter Knutsen wrote:
>
>
> I've also posted this to the FFRE-Discussion mailing list:
>
> <
>
http://groups.google.dk/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/browse_thread/thread/00de02b27d6\
4abf0?hl=en#
>
<http://groups.google.dk/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/browse_thread/thread/00de02b27d\
64abf0?hl=en#>
>
>  >
>
> Since there are no "constructs" in the Árth setting, the part that
> really interests me is the one about what happens if you try to cast
> Dispel Magic on an Undead or an Elemental, or for that matter a Were.
>
> Likewise, what if such a creature enters a Magic Suppression-Zone. Or
> what if a Familiar does?
>
> Even if Dispel Magic does nothing against permanent magic (and I think
> that should be the case), there would still be other MetaMagic spells,
> perhaps called Negate Magic, which were specifically Invented for the
> purpose of temporarily nullifying the effects of magic items.
>
> What effects would such spells have on Undead, Weres, Elementals? Would
> it differ based on whether the Undead is temporary (as most Minor
> Undeads are, i.e. zombies and skeletons) or permanent (meaning that
> Essence has been paid).
>
> Ghouls are sort of living, in a way, since they must eat flesh to
> sustain themselves. Should they be classified as "pseudo-living" because
> of this? Vampires too, are sort-of alive.
>
> I haven't actually gotten that far in terms of the magic system design,
> but those are important questions.
>
> --
> Peter Knutsen
> sagatafl.org
>

--- In rpg-create@yahoogroups.com, Brian Gross <imposteraz@...> wrote:
>
> All interesting questions!
>

Yes, they are. Though it's something which is still a bit vague in my
mind.

As far as OMNIA is concerned, the answer depends on the creature
entering the no-magic zone.

For Elementals, the answer is easy: no Elementals exist in OMNIA. The
magic system is somewhat 'elementalist' in nature, but the elements
are simply manifestations of the primeval Arcane Energy (the Power);
they do not have embodied and/or personal characteristics.

More or less natural creatures, like familiars and were-creatures,
are created by modifying the existing structure of a natural
creature. This modification is permanent and alters the very reality
of the creature. It's origin is magical, (though that term is vague
and undefined in OMNIA; anyway you could say taht their origin is
supernatural) but the effect is part of this reality, in the sense
that the reality has been modified once and for all, there's no
continual modification ongoing. The closest example I can think of is
being 'magically healed'. Once you are healed, the effect is
permanent and it is not being caused by magic anymore. Obviously,
these kind of effects are not affected by the non-magicness of the
area in any way.

(By the way, I'm including were-creatures for the sake of
completeness; I'm not sure OMNIA will have them, at least not
according to the usual fantasy approach. They may be part of an
expansion in any case and even if they are something I'm not planning
to use in my setting, rules for those should be put in place, so as
to let other GMs/players use them if they fit their setting).

Undead and constructs creation methods differ depending on whether
the animation is temporary or permanent. For temporary animations,
the recipient is given a supply of energy which lasts as long as the
animating effect states. After that supply is over, the animation
stops and the undead reverts to its dead state or the construct
reverts to its unanimated condition. This process is not impacted by
the no magic zone: the creature carries its own supply of energy
within itself and entering a no-magic zone does not change that. I'm
not sure I will allow for temporary animation effects at all, but if
I do, this is probably how they work. (Admittedly, I haven't put much
thought into the subject, and it shows...)

For permanent animations, the underlying effect is different.
Permanent animations are created by building a connection between the
recipient and the Source of Power, a sort of a permanent conduit
which allows the Power to flow from the Source to the
undead/construct. In this case, being within a no magic zone has an
effect, in that the conduit is slowly shrunk, so to speak: a smaller
and smaller quantity of Power flows into the body/statue. The
animation process is slowly reduced until it is brought to a halt.
The conduit itself is not destroyed in the process [1], so the
animation would revert to its former status once the recipient is
brought outside the no magic zone. The non-magicness of the area
simply obstructs the conduit so that the Power flowing through
it is stopped by all practical terms.

Also note that true Dispel Magic or Negate Magic effects are handled
differently in OMNIA wrt to most other fantasy rpg systems. Anyway,
no-magic zones are possible, but they can be created only via magical
items specifically enchanted for that purpose or via magical trees.

[1] The conduit itself has become part of the reality of the
creature, though at a higher and non-material level, just as
familiarity with an animal changes his mental reality so that a
friendship/relationship is embedded into it.

Mauro

> I think it's all a matter of, as you say, whether Essence has
> been invested in the item/being. This Essence would/should be a
> permanent, self-contained core of magic. This core would then
> retain was makes that item/being what it is and so can't be taken
> away casually.
>
> If the item/being is thrust into a Null Magic area, that would
> remove any abilities or attributes the item/being would have that
> require external Magic to support, be the basic nature of it
> would not be lost.
>
> Therefore, a permanent magic item or a "permanent" Undead
> (Vampire, Ghoul, Wraith, etc.) would lose whatever outward
> abilities rely on Magic from the environment, but these would be
> restored once environmental Magic levels are back to normal.
>
> The big kicker here is not areas of Null Magic, but areas of
> Negative Magic -- ones that actively drain Magical Essence from
> whatever enters. In this case, depending on how fast the draining
> occurs, I could see "permanent" Magical items/beings actually
> being "destroyed" -- reduced to just non-magical physical
> components.
>
> If such an environment existed, it would also drain Essence from
> Mages, too.  They might be able to regain Essence once they left
> that environment, but you could be cruel and say that once their
> Essence goes to zero in such an environment, what actually makes
> them Mages goes away, too.
>
> You could then apply these concepts to Dispel Magic, Drain Magic,
> Negate Magic, etc. spells, depending on the effect desired.
>
> Brian
>
> Peter Knutsen wrote:
> >
> >
> > I've also posted this to the FFRE-Discussion mailing list:
> >
> > <
> >

http://groups.google.dk/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/browse_thread/thread/0
0de02b27d64abf0?hl

=en#
> >

<http://groups.google.dk/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/browse_thread/thread/
00de02b27d64abf0?hl=en#>
> >
> >  >
> >
> > Since there are no "constructs" in the Árth setting, the part that
> > really interests me is the one about what happens if you try to
cast
> > Dispel Magic on an Undead or an Elemental, or for that matter a
Were.
> >
> > Likewise, what if such a creature enters a Magic Suppression-
Zone. Or
> > what if a Familiar does?
> >
> > Even if Dispel Magic does nothing against permanent magic (and I
think
> > that should be the case), there would still be other MetaMagic
spells,
> > perhaps called Negate Magic, which were specifically Invented for
the
> > purpose of temporarily nullifying the effects of magic items.
> >
> > What effects would such spells have on Undead, Weres, Elementals?
Would
> > it differ based on whether the Undead is temporary (as most Minor
> > Undeads are, i.e. zombies and skeletons) or permanent (meaning
that
> > Essence has been paid).
> >
> > Ghouls are sort of living, in a way, since they must eat flesh to
> > sustain themselves. Should they be classified as "pseudo-living"
because
> > of this? Vampires too, are sort-of alive.
> >
> > I haven't actually gotten that far in terms of the magic system
design,
> > but those are important questions.
> >
> > --
> > Peter Knutsen
> > sagatafl.org
> >
>

check out the www.d20srd.org for the majority of the phb in hypertext
format. (specifically all of the srd material.

myself, i make the craft skill optional. however using magic only
results in an inferior product that is weaker. kind of a natural
consequence of the balance between swift creation or assembly and
doing it the long way.

nijineko



does the walker choose the path, or does the path choose the walker?





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In rpg-create@yahoogroups.com, "Todd" <thirdkingdom@...> wrote:
>
> --- In rpg-create@yahoogroups.com, "danhertogs" <meandeviance@> wrote:
> >
> > I fundamentally agree, but one quick qualifier- I'm not aiming for
> > combat to be quick and easy like D&D for example, where you want to
> > get through tens of rounds per hour at least- I'm aiming for a more
> > deadly, realistic and gritty feel- you go into a fight knowing you
> > might not come out, so don't expect multiple fights in a row as the
> > staple of the game.
> >
>      It's interesting that you say that, because on the surface it
> seems like you're aiming to "simpler" than D&D

I think it's more complex than that. First of all, I'm generally in
favour of simplicity, but of course any system is a balance between
simplicity and playability.

I'm definitely trying to be more complex than a system where a single
dice is rolled against a defence value, with no roll for active
defence- in that respect D&D is terribly simple, and makes some
assumptions and simplifications which are too big for me. By using
action dice I'm moving away from the binary system of attack/move each
round.

However I'm also aiming for a system where you don't have to look
things up all the time, or refer to the book for each attack. I'd like
it to end up intuitive but dynamic.


> two individuals can be resolved in a single "turn".  Like I wrote
> earlier, die pool mechanics are not my strong point, but it seems to
> me that you could make it more realistic and gritty by having the
> participants start out by using a fraction of their available dice,
> and depending on the outcome, adjusting their strategy by adding
> additional dice to perform additional maneuvers or actions within
> their turn.  The result of that would be that an incredibly skilled
> swordsman, for instance, would have to use only a few of his available
> dice while his less skilled opponent would be forced to use more,

As things stand, a more skilled opponent will tend to need less dice
for the same result, so could choose to save some for a different
action. For example, someone with skill 6 vs skill 3 could probably
fight 2 opponents at once.


> the dice used are built up throughout the turn.  For instance:
> 1)Desired actions are stated and participants each use one die.
> 2)The initial results do not indicate a successful hit or parry but
> the way the combat is going.  Based upon the results, each participant
> can decide whether or not they want to add an additional die roll.

I partly agree here. I definitely want character to be able to spend
dice to try to move their opponent, disarm them and all the other
interesting things one might do apart from just hit each other. As
things stand, active defense adds +2 to your dice rolls, so it's
already worth spending some dice attacking and some defending.

I've toyed with the idea of spending dice bit by bit as the round goes
by, but I think that's just too complex. Appropriate for a duelling
system perhaps, but not for this. I'm aiming for a bunch of dice to
represent a whole series of moves, countermoves etc.


> 3)And so forth.  I don't know how the system works, but there could be
> skills that add or subtract modifiers to individual die results, such
> as parry, riposte, feint, full attack, full defense, etc. that help to
> bring realism to an exchange within a turn.  Part of the problem with
> D&D is that the system encourages a one swing per attack mentality
> whereas a successful attack is more likely a succession of feints,
> jabs, parries, etc.  Compare the combat in Zelazny's Amber novels to
> standard D&D.  Or better yet, watch some fencing to get an idea of the
> complicated strategies involved (better watch it in slow motion).
>
> Todd
>

Hi. I hope this messsage goes through. upgraded to Windows mail and still
learning the few changes with the addy book. Anyhoos, I am considering building
a new game from the ground up. I want to create a new zombie/supernatural game.
Something to do with survival horror. Maybe a few people are all that's left of
humanity and they have to stay alive and get away before the proverbial hits the
fan. Any ideas?

So far, I am thinking of having the game take place on a small, fictitious
island nation. Set in the current/not-too-distant future. Storyline will have
multiple arcs that will all eventually wrap up together in one sweeping ending.

Any ideas?

Regards,
Daniel

daniel.interrupted@...
asmdaniel@...
http://www.myspace.com/daniel_interrupted


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Daniel,

About a year ago one of the other players in my group ran a
zombie game for us where one of the few remaining outposts of
humanity was on Catalina Island (a few miles off the coast of
California, SW of Los Angeles). Refugees would occasionally show
up, there was a bit of trade with some other communities in
Mexico (mostly for fuel), we had to defend our trade routes from
pirates, then we discovered that the mob boss that controlled the
island was actually getting a cut from the pirates, and finally
zombies started walking out of the sea onto the beaches. Got
pretty intense! But a great time was had by all.

One thing you need to make sure you have is a good game mechanic
for aimed shots ("aim for the head"). It has to be easy to use,
and neither too difficult nor too easy to accomplish.

Then you need to decide if you have fast zombies or slow ones,
generally, with a few variations thrown in for variety and what
level of access to military weapons you will allow. See this web
comic for ideas on variations: http://www.thezombiehunters.com/

Other than that part of it, it's just a game of contemporary
mayhem. Or you can set it in an historical time period (the Zulu
battle of Rourke's Drift, but with zombies attacking the Brits,
instead of Zulu warriors?).  Have fun with it!

Brian

You Need To Ask? wrote:
>
>
> Hi. I hope this messsage goes through. upgraded to Windows mail and
> still learning the few changes with the addy book. Anyhoos, I am
> considering building a new game from the ground up. I want to create a
> new zombie/supernatural game. Something to do with survival horror.
> Maybe a few people are all that's left of humanity and they have to stay
> alive and get away before the proverbial hits the fan. Any ideas?
>
> So far, I am thinking of having the game take place on a small,
> fictitious island nation. Set in the current/not-too-distant future.
> Storyline will have multiple arcs that will all eventually wrap up
> together in one sweeping ending.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Regards,
> Daniel
>
> daniel.interrupted@... <mailto:daniel.interrupted%40mchsi.com>
> asmdaniel@... <mailto:asmdaniel%40yahoo.com>
> http://www.myspace.com/daniel_interrupted
> <http://www.myspace.com/daniel_interrupted>
>

The question of anti-magic is a deeply interesting topic!
My opinion...
   I don't think non-magic zones make very much sense at all.  I think
it makes better sense to have spells or zones that counteract
particular spells or spells of a particular subtype or that affect
certain creatures.  The idea of an anti-magic spell is self
contradictory.
   The paradox: what happens when one anti-magic zone spell overlaps
with another anti-magic zone spell?  To resolve this issue a special
rule could be created to handle it as a special case, but the
question remains: what's fundamentally happening?
   Spells that negate magic are inherently magical.-><-
   I find it better to stop using "no-magic" zones and instead think
of magical effects that suppress other magic effects of lesser
power.  Afterall, the logical response to an Anti-Magic Zone spell,
is to create the Anti-Anti-Magic Zone spell.  The logical response to
this is the Anti-Anti-Anti Magic Zone spell and so forth...
   Dispel Magic from 3.5 counters magical effects subject to a caster
level check.  The idea there is that the power of the caster
determines the power of the spell.  I find this approach better but
my next objection to "non-magic" is that no-magic spells universally
counter spells effects.
   My objection to the universal magical concept is that it too often
in practice becomes the explanation for things that ought not be
explained in that fashion but are for ease.  This results in
questions such as: Is the vampire's bite magical?  Is the Nymph's
blinding appearance magical?  Is the familiar's bond to his wizard
magical?  Are ghosts magical?  Is the ogre's incredible strength
magical?  Is the dragon's fire magical?  Is the glowing Will O'
Wisp's glow magical? etc.  And so all of these effects are in danger
of having a problematic game mechanic and have to be resolved on a
case by case basis.  How powerful are the "magical effects" of
creatures that are assumed to have an existence in "magical zones".
When the very existence of a creature is considered magical, we run
afoul of an existential crisis.  Part of the problem is that some of
the "magical" effects of creatures are better off not being affected
by a universally defined "non-magic".  DnD 3.5 uses extraordinary,
super-natural, and spell-like to differentiate the "magical" powers
of "magical" creatures and this in turn determines how they are
affected by "non-magic" spells.
   I think a better mechanic is to be able to counter particular
magical effects.  For example, the Endure Elements, Energy
Resistance, and Protection From Energy spells are easily explained,
easily applied concepts of magic that counters magic. - actually
effects that counter effects.
   The problem would seem to be that a wizard has to create a counter
spell for each "magical" effect individually.  That is a terrible
burden, and justifies the use of a universal counter to all magic
within the game system.  But I think magic should be categorized
according to the nature of its effects.  For examples, Fire effects,
Polymorph effects, and summoning effects.  Spells that counter a type
of effect would do so because they are creating an effect that
opposes the other effect - not because they are preventing the other
effect from being cast.  A similar concept would apply to effect
removal.  Reversing the effects of a polymorph, breaking a curse,
healing damage, etc.  I think this also makes for better gaming.  The
capability to simply remove effects universally whatever they are
cramps the creation of quests centerd around unusual effects.  As a
result, if you want to have an effect in the game that requires the
party to go on a quest to find the solution, you have to explicitly
design the effect to be immune to Dispel Magic or make it
exorbitantly high level.  In DnD 3.5, there are some spells that
explicitly declare their immunity to Dispel Magic because the game is
more interesting if they can't simply be dispeled.  Every time that's
done, it's a special case - an exception to the "universal" rule that
makes the game more complex.
   On the other hand, I find a spell like Dimensional Anchor to be a
better spell than Dispel Magic or Anti-Magic Zone  It is selective
enough to make it clear how the effect should be applied in every
case and general enough that it can be used against a variety of
spells and effects.
   For the case of Undead creatures, I think it makes sense to create
spells that effect undead in a special way.  For example,
Invisibility to Undead.  The ability to "dispel" (that is to destroy)
undead also makes a good subject for spell creation.
   There are some deeper issues to address concerning the status of
Undead Creatures.

   Animated Objects are like machines.  They don't have any life,
intelligence, or soul.
   Biological Animation is just a subset of Animation.  As such,
biological animation is not undeath even though the biological
animations are a mockery of life.
   Ghosts are undead without corporeal bodies and capture the crucial
difference between Undead and Animations.  Undead have soul or the
shadow of a soul or psychic residue which is trapped or connected to
a body, to an object, or to a place.  As such, undead are "sort of
alive" and animations are not.  Therefore, a Deanimate spell will not
work on undead but will work on animations.
   The soul is an important thematic element when considering the
undead.  The general theme of undeath is that undead creatures are
better off dead.  All forms of undeath are twisted forms of life that
never measure up to true life.  True life that does not die would be
infinite longevity (aka immortality).  The theme of undeath is a sort-
of life at a terrible price such as having to kill others, bodily
decomposition, or simply not having a body at all!  There is an
element of mental, emotional, and/or bodily incompleteness that
prevents an undead creature from having a meaningful and complete
existence.  Unfortunately for them, Undead remain becuase of negative
attachment such as being unable to kill themselves (entrapment), fear
of death, anger at something in life, or unfullfilled longing for
something missed in life.
   Based on these qualities, I'd say that if you had a non-magic zone
such as a "naturally occuring" zone of no-magic which might make some
sense depending on how magic is explained in the universe, then most
undead should remain unaffected but animated objects would deanimate
within the zone.  Elementals aren't animated objects, so they would
be fine also.
   If you do decide to have a concept of "non-magic", then it could be
interesting to add that to the list of magic item properties.  A
sword of "non-magic" might be particularly effective
against "magical" creatures such as vampires or constructs.  Of
course, I think it makes more sense to have magic swords be more
effective against magic creatures and get rid of the idea of non-
magic altogether.
   I also have objections to the concept of spell resistance that
closely follow my objections to anti-magic.

:-)
Symphony

--- In rpg-create@yahoogroups.com, "Mauro" <loki_29091974@...> wrote:
>
> --- In rpg-create@yahoogroups.com, Brian Gross <imposteraz@> wrote:
> >
> > All interesting questions!
> >
>
> Yes, they are. Though it's something which is still a bit vague in
my
> mind.
>
> As far as OMNIA is concerned, the answer depends on the creature
> entering the no-magic zone.
>
> For Elementals, the answer is easy: no Elementals exist in OMNIA.
The
> magic system is somewhat 'elementalist' in nature, but the elements
> are simply manifestations of the primeval Arcane Energy (the
Power);
> they do not have embodied and/or personal characteristics.
>
> More or less natural creatures, like familiars and were-creatures,
> are created by modifying the existing structure of a natural
> creature. This modification is permanent and alters the very
reality
> of the creature. It's origin is magical, (though that term is vague
> and undefined in OMNIA; anyway you could say taht their origin is
> supernatural) but the effect is part of this reality, in the sense
> that the reality has been modified once and for all, there's no
> continual modification ongoing. The closest example I can think of
is
> being 'magically healed'. Once you are healed, the effect is
> permanent and it is not being caused by magic anymore. Obviously,
> these kind of effects are not affected by the non-magicness of the
> area in any way.
>
> (By the way, I'm including were-creatures for the sake of
> completeness; I'm not sure OMNIA will have them, at least not
> according to the usual fantasy approach. They may be part of an
> expansion in any case and even if they are something I'm not
planning
> to use in my setting, rules for those should be put in place, so as
> to let other GMs/players use them if they fit their setting).
>
> Undead and constructs creation methods differ depending on whether
> the animation is temporary or permanent. For temporary animations,
> the recipient is given a supply of energy which lasts as long as
the
> animating effect states. After that supply is over, the animation
> stops and the undead reverts to its dead state or the construct
> reverts to its unanimated condition. This process is not impacted
by
> the no magic zone: the creature carries its own supply of energy
> within itself and entering a no-magic zone does not change that.
I'm
> not sure I will allow for temporary animation effects at all, but
if
> I do, this is probably how they work. (Admittedly, I haven't put
much
> thought into the subject, and it shows...)
>
> For permanent animations, the underlying effect is different.
> Permanent animations are created by building a connection between
the
> recipient and the Source of Power, a sort of a permanent conduit
> which allows the Power to flow from the Source to the
> undead/construct. In this case, being within a no magic zone has an
> effect, in that the conduit is slowly shrunk, so to speak: a
smaller
> and smaller quantity of Power flows into the body/statue. The
> animation process is slowly reduced until it is brought to a halt.
> The conduit itself is not destroyed in the process [1], so the
> animation would revert to its former status once the recipient is
> brought outside the no magic zone. The non-magicness of the area
> simply obstructs the conduit so that the Power flowing through
> it is stopped by all practical terms.
>
> Also note that true Dispel Magic or Negate Magic effects are
handled
> differently in OMNIA wrt to most other fantasy rpg systems. Anyway,
> no-magic zones are possible, but they can be created only via
magical
> items specifically enchanted for that purpose or via magical trees.
>
> [1] The conduit itself has become part of the reality of the
> creature, though at a higher and non-material level, just as
> familiarity with an animal changes his mental reality so that a
> friendship/relationship is embedded into it.
>
> Mauro
>
> > I think it's all a matter of, as you say, whether Essence has
> > been invested in the item/being. This Essence would/should be a
> > permanent, self-contained core of magic. This core would then
> > retain was makes that item/being what it is and so can't be taken
> > away casually.
> >
> > If the item/being is thrust into a Null Magic area, that would
> > remove any abilities or attributes the item/being would have that
> > require external Magic to support, be the basic nature of it
> > would not be lost.
> >
> > Therefore, a permanent magic item or a "permanent" Undead
> > (Vampire, Ghoul, Wraith, etc.) would lose whatever outward
> > abilities rely on Magic from the environment, but these would be
> > restored once environmental Magic levels are back to normal.
> >
> > The big kicker here is not areas of Null Magic, but areas of
> > Negative Magic -- ones that actively drain Magical Essence from
> > whatever enters. In this case, depending on how fast the draining
> > occurs, I could see "permanent" Magical items/beings actually
> > being "destroyed" -- reduced to just non-magical physical
> > components.
> >
> > If such an environment existed, it would also drain Essence from
> > Mages, too.  They might be able to regain Essence once they left
> > that environment, but you could be cruel and say that once their
> > Essence goes to zero in such an environment, what actually makes
> > them Mages goes away, too.
> >
> > You could then apply these concepts to Dispel Magic, Drain Magic,
> > Negate Magic, etc. spells, depending on the effect desired.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > Peter Knutsen wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I've also posted this to the FFRE-Discussion mailing list:
> > >
> > > <
> > >
>
>
http://groups.google.dk/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/browse_thread/thread/0
> 0de02b27d64abf0?hl
>
> =en#
> > >
>
>
<http://groups.google.dk/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/browse_thread/thread/
> 00de02b27d64abf0?hl=en#>
> > >
> > >  >
> > >
> > > Since there are no "constructs" in the Árth setting, the part
that
> > > really interests me is the one about what happens if you try to
> cast
> > > Dispel Magic on an Undead or an Elemental, or for that matter a
> Were.
> > >
> > > Likewise, what if such a creature enters a Magic Suppression-
> Zone. Or
> > > what if a Familiar does?
> > >
> > > Even if Dispel Magic does nothing against permanent magic (and
I
> think
> > > that should be the case), there would still be other MetaMagic
> spells,
> > > perhaps called Negate Magic, which were specifically Invented
for
> the
> > > purpose of temporarily nullifying the effects of magic items.
> > >
> > > What effects would such spells have on Undead, Weres,
Elementals?
> Would
> > > it differ based on whether the Undead is temporary (as most
Minor
> > > Undeads are, i.e. zombies and skeletons) or permanent (meaning
> that
> > > Essence has been paid).
> > >
> > > Ghouls are sort of living, in a way, since they must eat flesh
to
> > > sustain themselves. Should they be classified as "pseudo-
living"
> because
> > > of this? Vampires too, are sort-of alive.
> > >
> > > I haven't actually gotten that far in terms of the magic system
> design,
> > > but those are important questions.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Peter Knutsen
> > > sagatafl.org
> > >
> >
>

On the concept of non- or low-magic zones, a lot depends on your
game world's definition of where the magic "comes from". If the
Essence/Mana is separate from the physical world, it could just
be all around in a static field and so a non-magic area would not
make much sense. If it was separate from the physical but had its
own "flow and eddies" it would be more like the idea of the Ether
and so you could experience times of high or low "flow" or happen
to be stuck in an "eddy".  There could even be Magic "storms,
floods, droughts," etc.

If Essence/Mana was somehow attached to or part of the physical
world, then you could have a situation where the Mana in an area
has been "used up" by years of spells and enchantments. In that
case, it could be a matter of letting the area "lie fallow" for a
time to recover, or the effect could be permanent.

On the concept of generic Dispel Magic spells, I very much agree.
In GURPS one concept is that you need to know the spell the other
person is casting to dispel it, though there is a
higher-difficulty generic Dispel Magic available. Instead, I like
your idea that there are Dispel Magic spells that can be learned
that are specific to certain types of Magic (Fire, Spirit, etc.).
This makes it more workable in a gaming environment without
sacrificing plausibility by having a generic Dispel.

Brian

symphony88ing wrote:
>
>
> The question of anti-magic is a deeply interesting topic!
> My opinion...
> I don't think non-magic zones make very much sense at all. I think
> it makes better sense to have spells or zones that counteract
> particular spells or spells of a particular subtype or that affect
> certain creatures. The idea of an anti-magic spell is self
> contradictory.
> The paradox: what happens when one anti-magic zone spell overlaps
> with another anti-magic zone spell? To resolve this issue a special
> rule could be created to handle it as a special case, but the
> question remains: what's fundamentally happening?
> Spells that negate magic are inherently magical.-><-
> I find it better to stop using "no-magic" zones and instead think
> of magical effects that suppress other magic effects of lesser
> power. Afterall, the logical response to an Anti-Magic Zone spell,
> is to create the Anti-Anti-Magic Zone spell. The logical response to
> this is the Anti-Anti-Anti Magic Zone spell and so forth...
> Dispel Magic from 3.5 counters magical effects subject to a caster
> level check. The idea there is that the power of the caster
> determines the power of the spell. I find this approach better but
> my next objection to "non-magic" is that no-magic spells universally
> counter spells effects.
> My objection to the universal magical concept is that it too often
> in practice becomes the explanation for things that ought not be
> explained in that fashion but are for ease. This results in
> questions such as: Is the vampire's bite magical? Is the Nymph's
> blinding appearance magical? Is the familiar's bond to his wizard
> magical? Are ghosts magical? Is the ogre's incredible strength
> magical? Is the dragon's fire magical? Is the glowing Will O'
> Wisp's glow magical? etc. And so all of these effects are in danger
> of having a problematic game mechanic and have to be resolved on a
> case by case basis. How powerful are the "magical effects" of
> creatures that are assumed to have an existence in "magical zones".
> When the very existence of a creature is considered magical, we run
> afoul of an existential crisis. Part of the problem is that some of
> the "magical" effects of creatures are better off not being affected
> by a universally defined "non-magic". DnD 3.5 uses extraordinary,
> super-natural, and spell-like to differentiate the "magical" powers
> of "magical" creatures and this in turn determines how they are
> affected by "non-magic" spells.
> I think a better mechanic is to be able to counter particular
> magical effects. For example, the Endure Elements, Energy
> Resistance, and Protection From Energy spells are easily explained,
> easily applied concepts of magic that counters magic. - actually
> effects that counter effects.
> The problem would seem to be that a wizard has to create a counter
> spell for each "magical" effect individually. That is a terrible
> burden, and justifies the use of a universal counter to all magic
> within the game system. But I think magic should be categorized
> according to the nature of its effects. For examples, Fire effects,
> Polymorph effects, and summoning effects. Spells that counter a type
> of effect would do so because they are creating an effect that
> opposes the other effect - not because they are preventing the other
> effect from being cast. A similar concept would apply to effect
> removal. Reversing the effects of a polymorph, breaking a curse,
> healing damage, etc. I think this also makes for better gaming. The
> capability to simply remove effects universally whatever they are
> cramps the creation of quests centerd around unusual effects. As a
> result, if you want to have an effect in the game that requires the
> party to go on a quest to find the solution, you have to explicitly
> design the effect to be immune to Dispel Magic or make it
> exorbitantly high level. In DnD 3.5, there are some spells that
> explicitly declare their immunity to Dispel Magic because the game is
> more interesting if they can't simply be dispeled. Every time that's
> done, it's a special case - an exception to the "universal" rule that
> makes the game more complex.
> On the other hand, I find a spell like Dimensional Anchor to be a
> better spell than Dispel Magic or Anti-Magic Zone It is selective
> enough to make it clear how the effect should be applied in every
> case and general enough that it can be used against a variety of
> spells and effects.
> For the case of Undead creatures, I think it makes sense to create
> spells that effect undead in a special way. For example,
> Invisibility to Undead. The ability to "dispel" (that is to destroy)
> undead also makes a good subject for spell creation.
> There are some deeper issues to address concerning the status of
> Undead Creatures.
>
> Animated Objects are like machines. They don't have any life,
> intelligence, or soul.
> Biological Animation is just a subset of Animation. As such,
> biological animation is not undeath even though the biological
> animations are a mockery of life.
> Ghosts are undead without corporeal bodies and capture the crucial
> difference between Undead and Animations. Undead have soul or the
> shadow of a soul or psychic residue which is trapped or connected to
> a body, to an object, or to a place. As such, undead are "sort of
> alive" and animations are not. Therefore, a Deanimate spell will not
> work on undead but will work on animations.
> The soul is an important thematic element when considering the
> undead. The general theme of undeath is that undead creatures are
> better off dead. All forms of undeath are twisted forms of life that
> never measure up to true life. True life that does not die would be
> infinite longevity (aka immortality). The theme of undeath is a sort-
> of life at a terrible price such as having to kill others, bodily
> decomposition, or simply not having a body at all! There is an
> element of mental, emotional, and/or bodily incompleteness that
> prevents an undead creature from having a meaningful and complete
> existence. Unfortunately for them, Undead remain becuase of negative
> attachment such as being unable to kill themselves (entrapment), fear
> of death, anger at something in life, or unfullfilled longing for
> something missed in life.
> Based on these qualities, I'd say that if you had a non-magic zone
> such as a "naturally occuring" zone of no-magic which might make some
> sense depending on how magic is explained in the universe, then most
> undead should remain unaffected but animated objects would deanimate
> within the zone. Elementals aren't animated objects, so they would
> be fine also.
> If you do decide to have a concept of "non-magic", then it could be
> interesting to add that to the list of magic item properties. A
> sword of "non-magic" might be particularly effective
> against "magical" creatures such as vampires or constructs. Of
> course, I think it makes more sense to have magic swords be more
> effective against magic creatures and get rid of the idea of non-
> magic altogether.
> I also have objections to the concept of spell resistance that
> closely follow my objections to anti-magic.
>
> :-)
> Symphony
>
> --- In rpg-create@yahoogroups.com <mailto:rpg-create%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Mauro" <loki_29091974@...> wrote:
>  >
>  > --- In rpg-create@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:rpg-create%40yahoogroups.com>, Brian Gross <imposteraz@> wrote:
>  > >
>  > > All interesting questions!
>  > >
>  >
>  > Yes, they are. Though it's something which is still a bit vague in
> my
>  > mind.
>  >
>  > As far as OMNIA is concerned, the answer depends on the creature
>  > entering the no-magic zone.
>  >
>  > For Elementals, the answer is easy: no Elementals exist in OMNIA.
> The
>  > magic system is somewhat 'elementalist' in nature, but the elements
>  > are simply manifestations of the primeval Arcane Energy (the
> Power);
>  > they do not have embodied and/or personal characteristics.
>  >
>  > More or less natural creatures, like familiars and were-creatures,
>  > are created by modifying the existing structure of a natural
>  > creature. This modification is permanent and alters the very
> reality
>  > of the creature. It's origin is magical, (though that term is vague
>  > and undefined in OMNIA; anyway you could say taht their origin is
>  > supernatural) but the effect is part of this reality, in the sense
>  > that the reality has been modified once and for all, there's no
>  > continual modification ongoing. The closest example I can think of
> is
>  > being 'magically healed'. Once you are healed, the effect is
>  > permanent and it is not being caused by magic anymore. Obviously,
>  > these kind of effects are not affected by the non-magicness of the
>  > area in any way.
>  >
>  > (By the way, I'm including were-creatures for the sake of
>  > completeness; I'm not sure OMNIA will have them, at least not
>  > according to the usual fantasy approach. They may be part of an
>  > expansion in any case and even if they are something I'm not
> planning
>  > to use in my setting, rules for those should be put in place, so as
>  > to let other GMs/players use them if they fit their setting).
>  >
>  > Undead and constructs creation methods differ depending on whether
>  > the animation is temporary or permanent. For temporary animations,
>  > the recipient is given a supply of energy which lasts as long as
> the
>  > animating effect states. After that supply is over, the animation
>  > stops and the undead reverts to its dead state or the construct
>  > reverts to its unanimated condition. This process is not impacted
> by
>  > the no magic zone: the creature carries its own supply of energy
>  > within itself and entering a no-magic zone does not change that.
> I'm
>  > not sure I will allow for temporary animation effects at all, but
> if
>  > I do, this is probably how they work. (Admittedly, I haven't put
> much
>  > thought into the subject, and it shows...)
>  >
>  > For permanent animations, the underlying effect is different.
>  > Permanent animations are created by building a connection between
> the
>  > recipient and the Source of Power, a sort of a permanent conduit
>  > which allows the Power to flow from the Source to the
>  > undead/construct. In this case, being within a no magic zone has an
>  > effect, in that the conduit is slowly shrunk, so to speak: a
> smaller
>  > and smaller quantity of Power flows into the body/statue. The
>  > animation process is slowly reduced until it is brought to a halt.
>  > The conduit itself is not destroyed in the process [1], so the
>  > animation would revert to its former status once the recipient is
>  > brought outside the no magic zone. The non-magicness of the area
>  > simply obstructs the conduit so that the Power flowing through
>  > it is stopped by all practical terms.
>  >
>  > Also note that true Dispel Magic or Negate Magic effects are
> handled
>  > differently in OMNIA wrt to most other fantasy rpg systems. Anyway,
>  > no-magic zones are possible, but they can be created only via
> magical
>  > items specifically enchanted for that purpose or via magical trees.
>  >
>  > [1] The conduit itself has become part of the reality of the
>  > creature, though at a higher and non-material level, just as
>  > familiarity with an animal changes his mental reality so that a
>  > friendship/relationship is embedded into it.
>  >
>  > Mauro
>  >
>  > > I think it's all a matter of, as you say, whether Essence has
>  > > been invested in the item/being. This Essence would/should be a
>  > > permanent, self-contained core of magic. This core would then
>  > > retain was makes that item/being what it is and so can't be taken
>  > > away casually.
>  > >
>  > > If the item/being is thrust into a Null Magic area, that would
>  > > remove any abilities or attributes the item/being would have that
>  > > require external Magic to support, be the basic nature of it
>  > > would not be lost.
>  > >
>  > > Therefore, a permanent magic item or a "permanent" Undead
>  > > (Vampire, Ghoul, Wraith, etc.) would lose whatever outward
>  > > abilities rely on Magic from the environment, but these would be
>  > > restored once environmental Magic levels are back to normal.
>  > >
>  > > The big kicker here is not areas of Null Magic, but areas of
>  > > Negative Magic -- ones that actively drain Magical Essence from
>  > > whatever enters. In this case, depending on how fast the draining
>  > > occurs, I could see "permanent" Magical items/beings actually
>  > > being "destroyed" -- reduced to just non-magical physical
>  > > components.
>  > >
>  > > If such an environment existed, it would also drain Essence from
>  > > Mages, too. They might be able to regain Essence once they left
>  > > that environment, but you could be cruel and say that once their
>  > > Essence goes to zero in such an environment, what actually makes
>  > > them Mages goes away, too.
>  > >
>  > > You could then apply these concepts to Dispel Magic, Drain Magic,
>  > > Negate Magic, etc. spells, depending on the effect desired.
>  > >
>  > > Brian
>  > >
>  > > Peter Knutsen wrote:
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > > I've also posted this to the FFRE-Discussion mailing list:
>  > > >
>  > > > <
>  > > >
>  >
>  >
> http://groups.google.dk/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/browse_thread/thread/0
> <http://groups.google.dk/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/browse_thread/thread/0>
>  > 0de02b27d64abf0?hl
>  >
>  > =en#
>  > > >
>  >
>  >
> <http://groups.google.dk/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/browse_thread/thread/
> <http://groups.google.dk/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/browse_thread/thread/>
>  > 00de02b27d64abf0?hl=en#>
>  > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > >
>  > > > Since there are no "constructs" in the Árth setting, the part
> that
>  > > > really interests me is the one about what happens if you try to
>  > cast
>  > > > Dispel Magic on an Undead or an Elemental, or for that matter a
>  > Were.
>  > > >
>  > > > Likewise, what if such a creature enters a Magic Suppression-
>  > Zone. Or
>  > > > what if a Familiar does?
>  > > >
>  > > > Even if Dispel Magic does nothing against permanent magic (and
> I
>  > think
>  > > > that should be the case), there would still be other MetaMagic
>  > spells,
>  > > > perhaps called Negate Magic, which were specifically Invented
> for
>  > the
>  > > > purpose of temporarily nullifying the effects of magic items.
>  > > >
>  > > > What effects would such spells have on Undead, Weres,
> Elementals?
>  > Would
>  > > > it differ based on whether the Undead is temporary (as most
> Minor
>  > > > Undeads are, i.e. zombies and skeletons) or permanent (meaning
>  > that
>  > > > Essence has been paid).
>  > > >
>  > > > Ghouls are sort of living, in a way, since they must eat flesh
> to
>  > > > sustain themselves. Should they be classified as "pseudo-
> living"
>  > because
>  > > > of this? Vampires too, are sort-of alive.
>  > > >
>  > > > I haven't actually gotten that far in terms of the magic system
>  > design,
>  > > > but those are important questions.
>  > > >
>  > > > --
>  > > > Peter Knutsen
>  > > > sagatafl.org
>  > > >
>  > >
>  >
>
>

Larry Niven also had the idea of Warlock's Wheel, a simple spell
designed to use up all of the available mana in an area, starving out
any other spells and enchantments that were also powered by that energy.

Kiz

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 28, 2009, at 10:59 AM, Brian Gross <imposteraz@...>
wrote:

> On the concept of non- or low-magic zones, a lot depends on your
> game world's definition of where the magic "comes from". If the
> Essence/Mana is separate from the physical world, it could just
> be all around in a static field and so a non-magic area would not
> make much sense. If it was separate from the physical but had its
> own "flow and eddies" it would be more like the idea of the Ether
> and so you could experience times of high or low "flow" or happen
> to be stuck in an "eddy".  There could even be Magic "storms,
> floods, droughts," etc.
>
> If Essence/Mana was somehow attached to or part of the physical
> world, then you could have a situation where the Mana in an area
> has been "used up" by years of spells and enchantments. In that
> case, it could be a matter of letting the area "lie fallow" for a
> time to recover, or the effect could be permanent.
>
> On the concept of generic Dispel Magic spells, I very much agree.
> In GURPS one concept is that you need to know the spell the other
> person is casting to dispel it, though there is a
> higher-difficulty generic Dispel Magic available. Instead, I like
> your idea that there are Dispel Magic spells that can be learned
> that are specific to certain types of Magic (Fire, Spirit, etc.).
> This makes it more workable in a gaming environment without
> sacrificing plausibility by having a generic Dispel.
>
> Brian
>
> symphony88ing wrote:
>>
>>
>> The question of anti-magic is a deeply interesting topic!
>> My opinion...
>> I don't think non-magic zones make very much sense at all. I think
>> it makes better sense to have spells or zones that counteract
>> particular spells or spells of a particular subtype or that affect
>> certain creatures. The idea of an anti-magic spell is self
>> contradictory.
>> The paradox: what happens when one anti-magic zone spell overlaps
>> with another anti-magic zone spell? To resolve this issue a special
>> rule could be created to handle it as a special case, but the
>> question remains: what's fundamentally happening?
>> Spells that negate magic are inherently magical.-><-
>> I find it better to stop using "no-magic" zones and instead think
>> of magical effects that suppress other magic effects of lesser
>> power. Afterall, the logical response to an Anti-Magic Zone spell,
>> is to create the Anti-Anti-Magic Zone spell. The logical response to
>> this is the Anti-Anti-Anti Magic Zone spell and so forth...
>> Dispel Magic from 3.5 counters magical effects subject to a caster
>> level check. The idea there is that the power of the caster
>> determines the power of the spell. I find this approach better but
>> my next objection to "non-magic" is that no-magic spells universally
>> counter spells effects.
>> My objection to the universal magical concept is that it too often
>> in practice becomes the explanation for things that ought not be
>> explained in that fashion but are for ease. This results in
>> questions such as: Is the vampire's bite magical? Is the Nymph's
>> blinding appearance magical? Is the familiar's bond to his wizard
>> magical? Are ghosts magical? Is the ogre's incredible strength
>> magical? Is the dragon's fire magical? Is the glowing Will O'
>> Wisp's glow magical? etc. And so all of these effects are in danger
>> of having a problematic game mechanic and have to be resolved on a
>> case by case basis. How powerful are the "magical effects" of
>> creatures that are assumed to have an existence in "magical zones".
>> When the very existence of a creature is considered magical, we run
>> afoul of an existential crisis. Part of the problem is that some of
>> the "magical" effects of creatures are better off not being affected
>> by a universally defined "non-magic". DnD 3.5 uses extraordinary,
>> super-natural, and spell-like to differentiate the "magical" powers
>> of "magical" creatures and this in turn determines how they are
>> affected by "non-magic" spells.
>> I think a better mechanic is to be able to counter particular
>> magical effects. For example, the Endure Elements, Energy
>> Resistance, and Protection From Energy spells are easily explained,
>> easily applied concepts of magic that counters magic. - actually
>> effects that counter effects.
>> The problem would seem to be that a wizard has to create a counter
>> spell for each "magical" effect individually. That is a terrible
>> burden, and justifies the use of a universal counter to all magic
>> within the game system. But I think magic should be categorized
>> according to the nature of its effects. For examples, Fire effects,
>> Polymorph effects, and summoning effects. Spells that counter a type
>> of effect would do so because they are creating an effect that
>> opposes the other effect - not because they are preventing the other
>> effect from being cast. A similar concept would apply to effect
>> removal. Reversing the effects of a polymorph, breaking a curse,
>> healing damage, etc. I think this also makes for better gaming. The
>> capability to simply remove effects universally whatever they are
>> cramps the creation of quests centerd around unusual effects. As a
>> result, if you want to have an effect in the game that requires the
>> party to go on a quest to find the solution, you have to explicitly
>> design the effect to be immune to Dispel Magic or make it
>> exorbitantly high level. In DnD 3.5, there are some spells that
>> explicitly declare their immunity to Dispel Magic because the game is
>> more interesting if they can't simply be dispeled. Every time that's
>> done, it's a special case - an exception to the "universal" rule that
>> makes the game more complex.
>> On the other hand, I find a spell like Dimensional Anchor to be a
>> better spell than Dispel Magic or Anti-Magic Zone It is selective
>> enough to make it clear how the effect should be applied in every
>> case and general enough that it can be used against a variety of
>> spells and effects.
>> For the case of Undead creatures, I think it makes sense to create
>> spells that effect undead in a special way. For example,
>> Invisibility to Undead. The ability to "dispel" (that is to destroy)
>> undead also makes a good subject for spell creation.
>> There are some deeper issues to address concerning the status of
>> Undead Creatures.
>>
>> Animated Objects are like machines. They don't have any life,
>> intelligence, or soul.
>> Biological Animation is just a subset of Animation. As such,
>> biological animation is not undeath even though the biological
>> animations are a mockery of life.
>> Ghosts are undead without corporeal bodies and capture the crucial
>> difference between Undead and Animations. Undead have soul or the
>> shadow of a soul or psychic residue which is trapped or connected to
>> a body, to an object, or to a place. As such, undead are "sort of
>> alive" and animations are not. Therefore, a Deanimate spell will not
>> work on undead but will work on animations.
>> The soul is an important thematic element when considering the
>> undead. The general theme of undeath is that undead creatures are
>> better off dead. All forms of undeath are twisted forms of life that
>> never measure up to true life. True life that does not die would be
>> infinite longevity (aka immortality). The theme of undeath is a sort-
>> of life at a terrible price such as having to kill others, bodily
>> decomposition, or simply not having a body at all! There is an
>> element of mental, emotional, and/or bodily incompleteness that
>> prevents an undead creature from having a meaningful and complete
>> existence. Unfortunately for them, Undead remain becuase of negative
>> attachment such as being unable to kill themselves (entrapment), fear
>> of death, anger at something in life, or unfullfilled longing for
>> something missed in life.
>> Based on these qualities, I'd say that if you had a non-magic zone
>> such as a "naturally occuring" zone of no-magic which might make some
>> sense depending on how magic is explained in the universe, then most
>> undead should remain unaffected but animated objects would deanimate
>> within the zone. Elementals aren't animated objects, so they would
>> be fine also.
>> If you do decide to have a concept of "non-magic", then it could be
>> interesting to add that to the list of magic item properties. A
>> sword of "non-magic" might be particularly effective
>> against "magical" creatures such as vampires or constructs. Of
>> course, I think it makes more sense to have magic swords be more
>> effective against magic creatures and get rid of the idea of non-
>> magic altogether.
>> I also have objections to the concept of spell resistance that
>> closely follow my objections to anti-magic.
>>
>> :-)
>> Symphony
>>
>> --- In rpg-create@yahoogroups.com <mailto:rpg-create
>> %40yahoogroups.com>,
>> "Mauro" <loki_29091974@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> --- In rpg-create@yahoogroups.com
>> <mailto:rpg-create%40yahoogroups.com>, Brian Gross <imposteraz@>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> All interesting questions!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, they are. Though it's something which is still a bit vague in
>> my
>>> mind.
>>>
>>> As far as OMNIA is concerned, the answer depends on the creature
>>> entering the no-magic zone.
>>>
>>> For Elementals, the answer is easy: no Elementals exist in OMNIA.
>> The
>>> magic system is somewhat 'elementalist' in nature, but the elements
>>> are simply manifestations of the primeval Arcane Energy (the
>> Power);
>>> they do not have embodied and/or personal characteristics.
>>>
>>> More or less natural creatures, like familiars and were-creatures,
>>> are created by modifying the existing structure of a natural
>>> creature. This modification is permanent and alters the very
>> reality
>>> of the creature. It's origin is magical, (though that term is vague
>>> and undefined in OMNIA; anyway you could say taht their origin is
>>> supernatural) but the effect is part of this reality, in the sense
>>> that the reality has been modified once and for all, there's no
>>> continual modification ongoing. The closest example I can think of
>> is
>>> being 'magically healed'. Once you are healed, the effect is
>>> permanent and it is not being caused by magic anymore. Obviously,
>>> these kind of effects are not affected by the non-magicness of the
>>> area in any way.
>>>
>>> (By the way, I'm including were-creatures for the sake of
>>> completeness; I'm not sure OMNIA will have them, at least not
>>> according to the usual fantasy approach. They may be part of an
>>> expansion in any case and even if they are something I'm not
>> planning
>>> to use in my setting, rules for those should be put in place, so as
>>> to let other GMs/players use them if they fit their setting).
>>>
>>> Undead and constructs creation methods differ depending on whether
>>> the animation is temporary or permanent. For temporary animations,
>>> the recipient is given a supply of energy which lasts as long as
>> the
>>> animating effect states. After that supply is over, the animation
>>> stops and the undead reverts to its dead state or the construct
>>> reverts to its unanimated condition. This process is not impacted
>> by
>>> the no magic zone: the creature carries its own supply of energy
>>> within itself and entering a no-magic zone does not change that.
>> I'm
>>> not sure I will allow for temporary animation effects at all, but
>> if
>>> I do, this is probably how they work. (Admittedly, I haven't put
>> much
>>> thought into the subject, and it shows...)
>>>
>>> For permanent animations, the underlying effect is different.
>>> Permanent animations are created by building a connection between
>> the
>>> recipient and the Source of Power, a sort of a permanent conduit
>>> which allows the Power to flow from the Source to the
>>> undead/construct. In this case, being within a no magic zone has an
>>> effect, in that the conduit is slowly shrunk, so to speak: a
>> smaller
>>> and smaller quantity of Power flows into the body/statue. The
>>> animation process is slowly reduced until it is brought to a halt.
>>> The conduit itself is not destroyed in the process [1], so the
>>> animation would revert to its former status once the recipient is
>>> brought outside the no magic zone. The non-magicness of the area
>>> simply obstructs the conduit so that the Power flowing through
>>> it is stopped by all practical terms.
>>>
>>> Also note that true Dispel Magic or Negate Magic effects are
>> handled
>>> differently in OMNIA wrt to most other fantasy rpg systems. Anyway,
>>> no-magic zones are possible, but they can be created only via
>> magical
>>> items specifically enchanted for that purpose or via magical trees.
>>>
>>> [1] The conduit itself has become part of the reality of the
>>> creature, though at a higher and non-material level, just as
>>> familiarity with an animal changes his mental reality so that a
>>> friendship/relationship is embedded into it.
>>>
>>> Mauro
>>>
>>>> I think it's all a matter of, as you say, whether Essence has
>>>> been invested in the item/being. This Essence would/should be a
>>>> permanent, self-contained core of magic. This core would then
>>>> retain was makes that item/being what it is and so can't be taken
>>>> away casually.
>>>>
>>>> If the item/being is thrust into a Null Magic area, that would
>>>> remove any abilities or attributes the item/being would have that
>>>> require external Magic to support, be the basic nature of it
>>>> would not be lost.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, a permanent magic item or a "permanent" Undead
>>>> (Vampire, Ghoul, Wraith, etc.) would lose whatever outward
>>>> abilities rely on Magic from the environment, but these would be
>>>> restored once environmental Magic levels are back to normal.
>>>>
>>>> The big kicker here is not areas of Null Magic, but areas of
>>>> Negative Magic -- ones that actively drain Magical Essence from
>>>> whatever enters. In this case, depending on how fast the draining
>>>> occurs, I could see "permanent" Magical items/beings actually
>>>> being "destroyed" -- reduced to just non-magical physical
>>>> components.
>>>>
>>>> If such an environment existed, it would also drain Essence from
>>>> Mages, too. They might be able to regain Essence once they left
>>>> that environment, but you could be cruel and say that once their
>>>> Essence goes to zero in such an environment, what actually makes
>>>> them Mages goes away, too.
>>>>
>>>> You could then apply these concepts to Dispel Magic, Drain Magic,
>>>> Negate Magic, etc. spells, depending on the effect desired.
>>>>
>>>> Brian
>>>>
>>>> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've also posted this to the FFRE-Discussion mailing list:
>>>>>
>>>>> <
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> http://groups.google.dk/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/browse_thread/
>> thread/0
>> <http://groups.google.dk/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/browse_thread/thread/0
>> >
>>> 0de02b27d64abf0?hl
>>>
>>> =en#
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> <http://groups.google.dk/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/browse_thread/
>> thread/
>> <http://groups.google.dk/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/browse_thread/thread/
>> >
>>> 00de02b27d64abf0?hl=en#>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Since there are no "constructs" in the �rth setting, the part
>> that
>>>>> really interests me is the one about what happens if you try to
>>> cast
>>>>> Dispel Magic on an Undead or an Elemental, or for that matter a
>>> Were.
>>>>>
>>>>> Likewise, what if such a creature enters a Magic Suppression-
>>> Zone. Or
>>>>> what if a Familiar does?
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if Dispel Magic does nothing against permanent magic (and
>> I
>>> think
>>>>> that should be the case), there would still be other MetaMagic
>>> spells,
>>>>> perhaps called Negate Magic, which were specifically Invented
>> for
>>> the
>>>>> purpose of temporarily nullifying the effects of magic items.
>>>>>
>>>>> What effects would such spells have on Undead, Weres,
>> Elementals?
>>> Would
>>>>> it differ based on whether the Undead is temporary (as most
>> Minor
>>>>> Undeads are, i.e. zombies and skeletons) or permanent (meaning
>>> that
>>>>> Essence has been paid).
>>>>>
>>>>> Ghouls are sort of living, in a way, since they must eat flesh
>> to
>>>>> sustain themselves. Should they be classified as "pseudo-
>> living"
>>> because
>>>>> of this? Vampires too, are sort-of alive.
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't actually gotten that far in terms of the magic system
>>> design,
>>>>> but those are important questions.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Peter Knutsen
>>>>> sagatafl.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> RPG-Create on the web: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/rpg-create/Yahoo
> ! Groups Links
>
>
>