> Why can't they be immensely powerful when active and
> weaker when augmenting? And while you are at it, please explain to me
> the difference in Gloranthan terms. In a simple contest which
> subsumes a whole event, who is to say my use wasn't "active"?
>
> This isn't meant as an attack on you, Mike. This is something I've not
> been able to figure out. What is the difference in Gloranthan terms
> between active and augment-only use of a magic ability?
Oh, so it isn't just me being stupid? Nor have I. Not really.
Well, maybe, in a few instances, but not as an overall thing.
Take my Humakti PC, with her "weapon destroyer" feat. If she was just going to use it to augment, she'd hit the other guy's weapon with her sword, hoping to get the right angle/power to break the weapon, and adding the magic to make this easier. But she's a Devotee. Before she even gets into melee range, she can chant, project a beam of black light at him, and watch his axe-head crumple into dust. (And then politely wait for him to re-arm before attacking, because she's an Honour nut!)
But there, she's only using the one ability, and she's the protagonist, so it's pretty obvious it must be active use. Suppose he was the attacker, his aim was "hit her", hers was "avoid being hit", and her stated defence was that feat - as a defence, she can use it actively even if normally she couldn't, right? And the in-game actions would be *identical*.
Suppose you're healing someone. You use your first aid ability (whch may be 6), and your "heal things" magic, whether that's a Feat, common magic, or whatever. You use them both at once. Obviously. Even if the first aid is just to recognise that the bit that needs healing is the bit that's bleeding a lot. So which is primary and which is an augment, and how does the Gloranthan character know?
Powered by hypermail