Re: 'Active' Magic in defence?

From: Andrew Dawson <asmpd_at_...>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:24:11 -0600

At 05:22 AM 3/19/2004 +0000, flynnkd2 wrote:
>Can you extend this further... eg A Oakfed Shaman attacks a whole
>group with a Bonfire Spirit, his goal being to burn them all. Would
>the group then try to 'prevent the goal'... either all rolling
>individually or making one roll for the group?
>I actually quite like the idea of this, but I am worried it might
>end up getting out of hand in what skills could end up being
>compared to each other.

This is how I've been running games, and I encourage the players to respond with any ability they can justify. If it's inappropriate, penalize it or deny it (usually by huge penalties).

>2) The other aspect of this is the use of 'active' magic in a
>defensive role. If you consider an action to be an exchange then
>both sides could fire at each other... I shoot him with arrows vs I
>shoot him with arrows, OR I cast "Burn his body to a cinder" at him,
>I reply by casting "Stop his heart from beating"... the exchange and
>rolls would merely represent which one got their effect out first?
>Both actions are "attacking".
>Or am I pushing this too far?

Off the top of my head, this is how simple contests can work, but extended contest exchanges have an actor and a resistance. Simultaneous attacks in an extended contest sounds like no active resistance (default resistance, but what would be the advantage of doing this rather than using a better resistance, unless you have changed the nature of extended contests to a "fast draw" each time), and could work as a house rule.


Powered by hypermail