On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 12:04 PM, Alex Ferguson wrote:
>> p. 104: "any magical ability *whose nature is not specified during
>> character creation* is assumed to be a talent"
>
> <snip many examples>
>
> If this implication of this isn't that Puma Person shapechanging is a
> talent, that talents = innate magic, and that innate magic is a subset
> of common magic, I don't know *what* it is.
The Puma's shapechanging ability is *not* common magic. There most likely will be something in the FAQ, that will hopefully be up shortly, explaining this.
> > The middle section of that sentence is key. There's *nothing* in the
> > rules that say you can't specify that a magic you were born with is
> not
> > common magic.
>
> What it's saying is that they need not arise from the common
> *religions*.
Nope, that's not what it's saying. Nowhere in that sentence is it saying anything about religions. If a player wants his hero to have a magic ability (not common magic talent), there's *nothing* in the rules that says he can't. The narrator can, if that's the way she wants her Glorantha to be. That's not the official line, though.
> (Personally I'm not entirely clear how meaningful it is to
> be "taught" innate magic, though; one could rationalise this as being
> training to use an existing but unknown or "unawakened" capability, in
> the same sort of sense that being able to run is inherent to an
> able-bodied human, but you can still be 'taught' to do it better.) If
> innate magic isn't common magic in the broad sense, then what pray tell
> is it?
Just that: an innate magical ability. There will be an entry in the FAQ clarifying this.
Camo
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Powered by hypermail