| From: | Gurth gurth@******.nl |
|---|---|
| Subject: | A different take on "Slaughter Enemies". |
| Date: | Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:41:36 +0200 |
street was...
> Spells that only effect enemies are NOT weaker than their general
> counterparts. Is it a detriment for a combat spell to only effect enemies?
> Who else would you want to effect?
It prevents you from sniping with the spell at someone who isn't a long-
term enemy of yours. You couldn't use it to take out a security guard who
doesn't know you're there, for example. After all, it won't kill potential
enemies (and if you want a "Slay Potential Enemies" spell, that's fine by
me, but it'll just be Manabolt under another name.)
> In fact, Slaughter Enemies greatly benefits from this "restriction". The
> mage gets to have an equally effective spell (against his enemies) and
> not worry about hurting his comrads. A great benefit, indeed(!!!) (...I
> say, as I cast Slaughter Enemies into a melee. All the bad guys drop and
> all my buddies are left standing over the corpses.)
The Chocolate Mousse effect :) I agree with this part, though. For a
single-target spell, it's justifiable, but an area-effect spell becomes
too powerful this way.
> Also note that, for game balance, combat spells require that mages be able
> to at least see their targets. If you can't see 'em, you can't hurt 'em.
Only for combat spells. Damaging manipulation spells can hit targets you
can't see...
--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Here come the golden oldies. Here come the Hezbollah.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
