> Magic (even when it isn't being used against passive resistance or for "the
> impossible") is still a valid ability. Just because it isn't *better* at
> doing things doesn't mean it isn't useful - Don't have your sword handy, but
> have "Flickering Blade" feat? Who says that has to be cast *on* a sword?
> Laid up in bed with a crippling injury when the Lunars bust in? How about
> using your "Protect Home" feat as an active ability?
Ummm.. Flickering Blade is cast on the sword, you then use that against someone else. See, the way I'm now seeing Gloranthan magic, that makes perfect sense. If for some reason you need to find out if the magic works on the sword, you roll against 14 (not that I would ever really demand that as a Narrator). You then use your flickering blade sword like any normal ability.
Same with Protect Home. The 14 would apply to the home resisting the magic being cast on it. In any other contest scenario (which is virtually every one you see, since the magic is part of the conflict, not the basis of the conflict) then it is against what is attacking the home.
In fact, looking at more of the examples in the book, they seem to be put that way. The magic is phrased in a way so as to be very tight, and avoid this problem all together. Your spell is "strike true" or "sharpen the blade". It's effect on other resisting things is indirect.
> Glorantha is not like other fantasy worlds - magic is not "special" and
> reserved for a few wizards, but is used on everyday things by everyday
> people. The difference between a "magician" and a "muggle" in Glorantha is
> merely a matter of degree and training, not an un-crossable divide.
Never said it was. Although the difference between being able to use magic only as augments or getting to use it as an active ability is pretty important.
> I won't say "you're wrong to do that", 'cause it's your game, but that is
> certainly not the intention of HQ magic. Magic is an ability just like any
> other. Occasionally, you get lucky and are able to get that resistance 14,
> making it better *in some narrow circumstances*. Otherwise it is just
> another way to get stuff done. A devotee of Destor need not have a weapon
> skill or a physical weapon when he can call on his magic to use in a fight.
But look at those suggested Combat affinities: Armor of Woad, Enchant Silver, Flickering Blade, Leaping Shield, Overbear Foe, Throw with wind, [Weapon] Help.
None are about using the magic on your opponent. They are about using the magic to help you. This makes perfect sense in the way you previously described the feel of Gloranthan magic.
> A devotee of Navestos need not be strong, when he has Strength of the Earth.
And all his feats fit this pattern as well.
> A Devotee of Odayla need not be stealthy, because he has the hide affinity.
Here as well.
It seems it is just a question of wrapping your mind around that intention. In this, I think the tree-jumping example to clarify the rule is actually very misleading without a better description of this underlying philosophy of the magic in the world.
> It helps of you have skills to match your magic (since magic and mundane
> abilities can augment each other), but it's not necessary.
I wouldn't think it would be. You give yourself the skill with the magic. But it is yourself you are giving the skill to, modifying, etc. Or the world. Not your foe. At least, almost never. (Curses, for instance, are directly against the foe)
This makes the whole thing a lot easier to deal with and understand, and despite what I thought, the magic system is clearly designed with this in mind. All making my heart much lighter.
LC
Powered by hypermail