>Resurrecting the old thread. :)
"Osiris! Here lies the thread of the people! Let her cross over!" (Sorry)
>Hang on, was it ever established that non-active magic use *didn't*
>show any effect?
As far as I know, Gloranthan magic always has tangible effects when it's in use (not necessarily *visible*, especially if it's troll or dwarf magic). Augment-only magic just represents a less powerful spell being used to supplement your own abilities rather than twisting the world directly by the force of your will - but it's still using magic.
>Magic in Buffyverse is tricky. There certainly seems to be a lot of
>"anyone with access to the book" magic, which might best be
>represented by common magic spells. Then there is the instinctive
>power stuff the "real witches" do. I'd probably go for the "written
>magic" with Wizardry rules and then the "real magic" with either
>animism or theism.
Thinking about this - one of the notable things about Buffyverse magic is that they very rarely use the same spell more than once. That supports the Animism model: a witch is summoning a spirit or "god" ("Not dead, yet not of the living; spirits of the interregnum, we call!"; "Goddess Hecate, work thy will; before thee let the unseen thing crawl!") then Releasing it to gain its entire ability or AP bonus all at once. However, after that she can't easily summon the same spirit again, at least not until a long time has elapsed. Compare wizardry, where a memorised spell can and must be used again and again in an identical fashion. Willow's locator spell, one of the few she does re-use in many episodes, could therefore be (common magic?) wizardry.
Powered by hypermail