Re: Re: Mystics, schmystics.

From: Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_...>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 22:37:49 +1300


At 11:19 6/03/02 -0600, you wrote:

>I've never really understood how mystics are supposed to work. I take it
>that they are supposed to try to remove themselves from "entanglements"
>with the world, so they can "refute" the weight of a bolder when they try
>to lift it, "refute" the existence of somebody's armor when they give him
>the Flying Lotus Kick, "refute" their need for food, water, and sleep,
>etc. Is this actually the case? Is there any limit on what they can "refute"?

My interpretation of how the mysticism strikes and counters should be understood is up at:

http://www.btinternet.com/~Nick_Brooke/moonie/illumination.htm

Refutation should only be useful as disengagements from the world. One can refute hunger, gravity etc only when they affect the mystic. He could not refute the armour off a foe.

Thumping someone with a mystical power is not a refutation but a strike. What's not borne out in the rules (and contradicted by some of the keywords in HW:RiG) is that strikes should be a transformation that permanently alters the victim. Being killed is a good example of such a transformation, being momentarily stunned by a flying lotus kick is not (which means stunts like these should be part of the martial arts skill).

--Peter Metcalfe

Powered by hypermail