> I believe the intention is that common magic is very specific and very
> low-level.
I quite agree that is the intention. But the game doesn't really do anything to support that.
> "Cure nettle sting", not "heal injury". I agree that this is not
> well described, nor easy to quantify. Personally I would allow "cure nettle
> sting" to cure other stings, at a modifier, but I'd never allow "heal
> injury" to be common magic in the first place.
Neither would I. But the Bison people, just to start at the beginning
have these common magics:
"Healing" (Yup, that's it. "Healing". If it wasn't for the p81 thing
about minor magical healing being the top end of common magic...)
And if that wasn't enough, they also have access to... "Big Healing".
Then there's "Destroy Chaos" and "Destroy Godling".
Admittedly, Destroy Chaos falls under "pompous magic", but it is still evidence of common magic not just being little low-level helping stuff.
> Personally I emphasize this, because I like it this way. Those little
> nitty-gritty bits of colour add a lot to a campaign, esp. when intelligently
> used, and they contrast nicely with the Big Stuff.
I, too, have insisted common magic be fairly limited in how much it can do. It's a choice I've made that fits well with the feel of the world. But I could probably make a pretty nasty set of common magics (all which start at the common magic keyword level) for a concentrated user.
> > No one becomes a god by being a disciple of a
> > god. Discipleship is for people with no imagination.
I'm not sure about this. Are we certain no one becomes a god who was a disciple? I don't see why.
> > You have to be an initiate of two gods...
Sorry? Why is this?
LC
Powered by hypermail