Re: Foreign Magic - flavour and crunch

From: Stephen McGinness <stephenmcg_at_5pI09eZPx3fwlq_NeVR9vKkxD6SSAlBu0xN1rHEANAPu98bPkTw0Ej13lTjewcWVI>
Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 11:40:18 +0100

It wasn't a typo. I was thinking that defensive magic was more effective against foreign magic and stuff to detect or dispel foreign magic would be less effective.

The thought is that if an animist has countermagic 1 cast on them and a theist cast disruption then the countermagic would protect and still stand. Better. It means the theist disruption was less effective against the foreign magic but the animist countermagic was more effective against the foreign magic than it would have been against an animist based disruption.

If the theist then tries to dispel the countermagic they would have to use at least dispel magic 2.

If both attack and defensive magic is less effective then there is no relative change in power...


valkoharja wrote:
> --- In
> <>, Stephen McGinness
> <stephenmcg_at_...> wrote:
> - I was thinking that animist defensive
> > magic (such as countermagic) should work doubly effectively against
> > theist or sorcerous magic.
> I wonder if that's a typo. It's supposed to be less effective against
> foreign magic.
> -Adept

Powered by hypermail