Re: Re: Do the rules determine the nature of Glorantha?

From: Paul Andrew King <paul_at_...>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:21:28 +0100

> For example, unless I see a convincing, reasoned
>argument for the bait-and-switch approach of enticing heroes to start with
>common magic, spend resources on it, and then drop it to pursue the really
>interesting magic, I'm not going to have this IMG.

Can you explain why you call it "bait-and-switch" ? I mean if the players know about how magic works there is no great incentive to spend Hero Points on common magic unless the player intends to concentrate it. Increasing Common Magic abilities is very obviously not cost effective (you would need to spend 16 HP to improve 1 ability to the point where it would produce a +3 instead of a +2 augment). Adding another common magic ability is a little better when compared to buying a +2 in one go, but it still isn't a big deal.

I don't think that common magic offers enough to be considered "bait" and there is no "switch" - the benefits of common magic are still there and the benefits of concentrating are all described, up front in the rules.

-- 
--
"The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of 
immortality.  More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals 
in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala 
Guide to Taoism_

Paul K.