RE: Active/inactive

From: Jane Williams <janewilliams20_at_...>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:04:40 +0100

 

> Stupid honourable Humakti. Unless as a narrator I ruled you
> had to touch the weapon to break it, this seems fine.

And range modifiers are there for a reason, so "touch range only" is not the default.

> > 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*.
>
> Exactly. Even if she wasn't able to use it actively normally
> (let's say
> it was common magic and she wasn't concentrated), she could use it
> actively in defense.

So, if she couldn't normally use it actively, then if we were in an extended contest, and if it happened to be his turn to bid not hers (a game mechanic), then she could do the beam of black light thing, and if it was her turn, she'd have to wait and use it via a sword?

This seems to me to be remarkably silly.

> Exactly. Is there a difference between an augment use and a non-augment
> use of magic to the Gloranthan Eye? I really am not sure.

I can see specific cases (sometimes), but what we need is an overall generic difference.

Powered by hypermail