RE: Immortals vs. 'Heroes'

From: donald_at_...
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 22:48:21 GMT


In message <20050703211519.WPLG23101.aamta10-winn.ispmail.ntl.com_at_homemaster> "Jane Williams" writes:

> Donald:
>> I don't follow this logic. Why is getting community support of an army
>> in a battle any different from getting community support for a HQ?
>
>Well, partly because I worded it rather badly, and partly because you
>snipped the question I was answering. Let's put it back in.
>
>> How does the number of their followers
>> affect their personal abilities or the amount of magic they can offer? ..
>
>With reference to "Heroes" who may be heading towards immortality etc. but
>aren't there yet.
>
>So the army in a battle may well be useful, but is nothing to do with the
>level of their personal abilities. A HQ to help them gain new abilities,
>though, can be made easier by having community support, and so indirectly,
>having lots of followers will mean that they have higher abilities.

Commanding an army can get a hero new abilities - tactics, strategy, logistics, deal with pig-headed subordinates, etc. About the only difference is that HQs can be a short cut to improvement - instead of building up an ability gradually you follow a path which gives it you quickly.

I know there's a lot of emphasis is on personal abilities such as close combat but this is precisely where getting community support is going to be most difficult. When it's a choice for the clan between boosting their Starkval initate's "Command Fyrdmen" and a Destor initiate's "Summon Umbroli" which is most likely to get done? Of course an Orlanthcarl's "Protect Fields" may well get preference over both.

When you get away from Heortlings the emphasis on HQs which have little benefit for the individual is going to be greater the community benefits are going to be the priority.

-- 
Donald Oddy
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/

Powered by hypermail