Obviously this is going to start coming down to differing philosophies of how magic
works and/or is effective, of course. It seems, though, that if magic is really only better
for doing specific intended purpose things that cannot be done normally, that a lot of
magic seems purposeless. If all magic was written in such a way that it worked like that
(Magic is specifically targeted to doing that which is impossible otherwise and against
non-resisting things) this would work fine. Magic would be much clearer. But it doesn't
seem to be written that way at all. (Admittedly, I have but the main book and now a copy
of Masters of Luck and Death, perhaps this impression will go away with more
Gloranthan things to look at.) If this really is the way Gloranthan magic works, I'd make
sure to try in my campaign to make and interpret magic be primarily about affecting
yourself or the outside world (not people) in very specific narrow ways. (i.e. magic not
being about attacking someone, only about giving you a better way to attack them for
example)
Look, you know vastly more than I do about the way it is supposed to work, and
therefore I will assume you are right, but that's not at all clear from the rules that that is
an element of the "tone" of Gloranthan magic.
(Just one more thing to stick in the toolbelt for future reference. *grin*)
LC
On 23 May 2004 at 17:31, Roderick and Ellen Robertson wrote:
> Well, you *can* do that, but the design philosophy of HeroQuest is that
> magic is not, in general, better than any other ability. it can let you do
> things that you normally can't do (like, say, fly), but it is no better at
> doing general things. A magical ability has both narrow, specific
> applications; and broad, general ones, but it is only really "better" (ie,
> resistance 14) when used for its intended purpose against a non-resisting
> opponent. This is an intentional rule and, I dare say, reflects the way Greg
> thinks Gloranthan magic works.