>So, the implication that concentrating on a common magic religion would
>limit your magical options seems contradictory to that. So, do I
>misunderstand concetration as a whole, or is it that I've misinterpreted
>your words on common magic religions above?
By common magic religion, Rory is talking about the rules in MoLaD p45. That covers the circumstances in which Donandar and Lanbril are presented as Common Religions yet they can be specialized in to obtain higher magic (as described in Storm Tribe p210-11 or HQ p124 for Donandar).
> >Note that not all comman
> >magic religions allow this!
>Allow what?
Specialization as a common magic religion according to the MoLaD rules.
>Part of the confusion seems to stem from the fact that in other areas of
>magic, there's no philosopy to which you "concentrate".
But you are not concentrating on a philosophy. You are concentrating on a specific type of magic.
>I'm still confused about common magic religions and how they work, actually.
>I don't remember that we ever cleared any of that up. Can a person take a
>common magic religion keyword as part of their common magic?
Yes. The Teshnan Archer does so in the rules and his character sheet is visible on HQ p25.
>Part of the problem that I have with this is that so few of the common magic
>religions are defined (as opposed to how many are presented) that you'd have
>to do a lot of work to create the keywords for them if someone declared
>themselves a member?
Why do you need to create keywords for most of them? Most common religions are devoid of higher meaning and what's described in their shortform is all they teach.
>Why have I never seen a sample character with a
>common magic religion listed?
HQ p25.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail