David Dunham wrote:
> Darran
>
> >I thought that theistic homelands had very few feats as Common Magic
> >having more spells, talents and charms instead. The whole point was
> >that if someone wanted feats they could initate into a 'proper' cult.
>
> I confess that in most cases, I've never seen the logic in terms of
> designating common magic abilities as talents, feats, charms, or
> spells. Especially since the rules allow players to pick any common
> magic abilities they want.
>
> Is there something I've missed?
I am only guessing but it may be due to when the players concentrate on common magic and have all those spells, feats, charms or talents as active abilities rather than just being augmented with them. Or I could be completely wrong and they are called spells, feats, charms or talents just for colour as they all work the same. Thoughts?
> Peter
>
> >I think common magic is kind of neat,
> >and I would like even concentrating PCs to have access to it, although in a
> >reduced form (they'll be magically buff enough to get over the Chorms
> >without a spell or charm (or you'll have another story to tell)).
>
> Funny, I just had the same thought, seconds before I read this. It's
> cool and fun. Yet the rules tell you to be a concentrated initiate
> (since that's the way to get magic), and give it up.
I some of our games [especially in the Esvulari ones] everyone has the 5 CM 'things'. They usually do not use them when they have *proper* magic to use that gives more clout per HP. However when your Liturgist has lost his Abiding Book, along with everything else, he needs some magical aid when that hungry gorp comes crawling his way. The only thing he has left to call on is his CM that he learnt when he was younger. He'll get into trouble with his church though for using his CM.
Cheers,
DARRAN SIMS
Powered by hypermail