Me, on CON instead of POW:
<<Unless you have 'CON gain rolls' somebody with lots of divine spells
would actually have a lot less magical strength than a lower level initiate
(albeit more he could do with that strength). Neither of these options feel
right to me.>>
Sergio:
<<a) In RQ rules, if you sacrifice for a divine spell you loose the
corresponding CON. Why? My proposal is: you don't. The CON sacrificed for the
spell is not lost. So if you have 15 CON and sacrificed 12 for Lhankor Mhy
spells, you still have your 15 CON. [snip] When you sacrificed all your CON,
you commited yourself fully to the service of the god.>>
So you're putting a limit on the number of divine spells you can learn? Not so bad, I suppose, but I still don't like the idea of that limit being CON. This allows fit, outdoors types with high CON to have a greater range of magic than the more scholastic type. While that has a certain logic to it with many cults (Orlanth, Humakt, Yara Aranis) it still doesn't feel right for cults such as Lhankor Mhy or Malkion.
<<From the point of view of thr cult, what is more important is not how much
CON you have but how much you sacrificed since this measures how much you
commited yourself to the cult.>>
But if you have a higher CON to start with, then you can sacrifice more, and thus get a wider range of spells. The person with a CON of 7 is always at a disadvantage compared to the person with a CON of 15, and where magic is concerned, I still don't think they should be.
<<If you are a cultist of more then a cult, you will never be able to commit
yourself fully to any of them what expains why you can't achieve an high
status in any of them...>>
Which is a neat argument for their being some limit - which I don't necesserily disagree with - but not necesserily this one.
<<b) The 'power' of the spell should not be based only on the CON you sacrificed (like it happens in RQ). It should also refflect the god's will and how well the character behaved according to the comandments of the cult (two issues to be dealt by the GM as the result of role-playing, not game mechanics).>>
But surely we need some kind of mechanic to know how effective the spell is and whether or not it works? There's a limit to how far I'm prepared to wing it...
<<The most important activity of priests is conducting cult activities and
ensuring people are faithful followers of the god. Most of these activities
don't require CON (or POW).>>
They probably do require CON if you're a Humakti or Uroxi, I'd have thought. A lot of military stuff is involved in those cults.
<<Conclusion: You don't need to have a very high CON to be a powerful
priest. All you need is a strong commitment, a daily respect of your god's
commandments, and to be a good leader of the community.>>
But it sure as heck *helps* to have a high CON under your system. Two people with equal commitment, but with widely varying CONs will not succeed equally, and for the more scholastic cults in particular, they *should* do. IMO, at any rate.
<< c) Runes: you don't resist spells that are based on runes you are = connected with. A dragonewt can't resist spells that are based on the = dragonewt rune, a troll doesn't resist spells that work with the = darkness rune, and so on (that requires all spells to have their runic = basis described. IMO this is a good thing from a role playing point of = view).>>
Surely the runic basis of disruption is 'death' though? This means Humakti can't resist disruption, which puts them at a distinct disadvantage in a fight. OTOH, there are many examples where this does make sense. Befuddle might well be based on 'disorder', so Trickster's can't resist it... yup, that figures!
Forward the glorious Red Army!
Trotsky
End of The Glorantha Digest V5 #174
Powered by hypermail