>As I replied to David, Spirit magic and Sorcery are different in
>_nature_.
Yes. However, "Spirit magic" is an invention of RQ3 and fails to describe more than half of the "battle magic" uses in RQ2. (It took me almost two years as a RQ-novice to work out how temples differ in the control of their magic spirits from shamans when teaching, the information being hidden in the spell description of the divine magic chapter. I was so bugged I wrote the RQ3 rules for divinely granted spirit magic separately - in German.)
I always found it counter-inspirative that priests should deal with impersonal spell spirits the same way shamans do. Especially stiff-up Dara Happans...
>I cannot see how you could define a range of variations
>between two intrinsically different things.
Since these "intrinsically different things" are not in any way unified internally (especially the lesser magic of the cults, like under the Carmanians in Peloria, or the Stygians in Ralios).
>[Start Heresy]
>One possible idea: cult non-runic magic is similar to Sandy's sorcery,
>with heavy restrictions in the vows one can take (see Nick's write-up of
>St. Orlanth).
Where's the heresy in this? However, I'd propagate a continuum between spirit magic as by-magic (like with Praxian worshippers of Orlanth Adventurous etc) and sorcery-like by-magic, depending on the nature of the cult.
>This is
>more satisfactory than the "spirit magic taught by the cult" limitation,
>which is always circumvented in actual game play (there is always an
>associate lightbringer who teaches that spell).
Isn't that how it's supposed to be?
>But it would require reworking almost everything our games!
And creating conversion mechanics...
Powered by hypermail