Re: Re: Defending against magic with mundane

From: Andrew Dawson <asmpd01_at_...>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 05:28:44 +0800


Rearranged slightly:

> --- In HeroQuest-rules_at_yahoogroups.com, "Roderick and Ellen Robertson"
> <rjremr_at_...> wrote:
> >
> > You know, I was thinking about this the other day, and I now see no reason
> > that magic (Theist and Sorcery, specifically - Animism has costs based on
> > how powerful your spirit is, and that seems correct to me) should be more
> > expensive than other abilities.
>

On 6/4/07, Rob <robert_m_davis_at_...> wrote:
> This is exactly my point. If that was the case then I really would have
> no problem with people using relevant mundane abilities against magical
> attacks, which is of course far more elegant.
...

Even with eased/corrected costs for magical abilities, I think there is some merit in penalizing mundane defense against magic - as a house rule. It's simpler in game terms to use any ability to defend, but it makes more sense to me (in terms of that whole argument over resistance in the thread that spawned this one) to make magic more effective - because it's magic. The two methods I've come up with, and sometimes used, are:

  1. Base 14 resistance to all magic, augmented by appropriate resistance abilities. This turns into an augment hunt (or makes magic that much more effective if allowing only one or a few augments).
  2. Hit mundane defense with a penalty equivalent to a bump down (or -20 to ability). This makes high mundane abilities effective against magic, which is something I like, since in my games high mundane abilities become magical.

Either way, I give a lot of leeway (width of application) to the use of affinities for defense. I've had so few non-theist PCs that I can't say what leeway I'd give to spirits, sorcery, etc.

Thanks,
Andy

Reply in haste, repent at leisure.

Powered by hypermail