> > Orlanth Adventurous (Destor) isn't the be-all, end-all of Orlanthi
magic!
>
> No, but since you mentioned him as an example, figured I'd use him.
Yes, but you were stating that "there is no direct magic" using one affinity.
> > You think "Overbear foe" can't be cast directly at your enemy?
>
> Possibly. But I would interpret more as "I overbear foe", so it is really
about me, not my
> foe.
Well, that's *an* interpretation.
> > "Flickering Blade"?
>
> Of course Flickering Blade isn't cast at your enemy. It's cast on a blade.
Either yours to
> make it flicker with lightining and be deadlier, or your enemy's to make
it flicker in and
> out of reality so it is easier to pierce his guard (haven't decided which
interpretation I
> like). Then you either use the blade or the opening to stab him in the
head.
"Of course" nothing. "I use my flickering blade feat at that guy 20 feet away - it creates a blade of lightning that slashes at my foe".
There is no one answer for magic (take a look at Javern Spithorn and Sunset Leap: http://www.glorantha.com/hw/javern_sunsetleap.html)
> Or make your foe's shield leap out of the way?
>
> Cast on the shield, not your foe.
Okay, but it's not on *you*, which seemed to me to be your theory.
> It all
> > depends on what is happening in the contest, but that's three counter
> > examples from your example of "help you only" feats. David Dunham has
> > mentioned use of Humakt's "Decapitate Foe" at range...
>
> There's no Humakt feats in the main book, so I know nothing of it. But I'd
have big
> problems with Decapitate Foe being something like "I do the feat and your
head falls
> off". I'd probably interpret it as "I give myself the ability and keenness
of edge to
> successfully cut off your head". So again, the magic is againt the
transformation of you,
> you then use the feat to cut the head off your foe.
Okay, I'll stay within the book.
Decapitate Foe is a feat of Humakt, the death god of the Heortlings. It is
"Pompous Magic" (page 99)
(actually, it is the poster child for Pompus Magic).
> > There are plenty of "direct" magical abilities. Erassa's magic is full
of
> > it, for example.
>
> Since there's no Erassa in the book, I'll take your word for it.
Sorry, Erissa. page 124.
> Look, rereading the magic section closely, it is obvious the rules are in
fact written as
> you say. There is a fundamental split between "beings" and "non-beings".
Beings get to
> resist with any mundane ability, non-beings don't. Now, I presume this
difference is
> sentience, since the only distinction we see is tree vs any being. I'm
not sure if this
> means rabbits and bison and gazzam resist with their ability or are
considered passive
> parts of nature. If they are nature and then get passive resistance, it
makes for weird
> moments where "overbear foe" is easier to use on a charging gazzam than a
big strong
> guy.
The split is "stuff that has an active resistence" and "stuff that doesn't". Sentience is not the only touchstone for it. Basically, if you, as narrator, say "This rock is magically massively heavy" then "Move Rock" magic gets resisted by "Massively Heavy", not 14. And you don't have to explain why. Glorantha is full of stuff that doesn't fit the rules or make sense to players.
> This could be the case, it may just be the fact that the very nature of
being sentient
> changes how magic interacts with you. Which is fine, and makes a certain
amount of
> sense. Magic fundamentally acts different against sentient beings than it
does "the
> world". People, descendents of Grandfather Mortal, (and dragonnewts just
because)
> are NOT passive agents of the world, and therefore magic doesn't work the
same way.
>
> I can buy that as an explanation for the way the rules are constructed.
Just don't restrict it to "people" - Daimones, Spirits, Essences are not related to Grandfather mortal, but still get their own resistence.
RR
Powered by hypermail