| From: | Brian Johnson expatrie@*******.net |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Slaughter Enemies (restricted target combat spells) |
| Date: | Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:45:37 -0500 |
> view this spell as a combination of Detect Enemies and Manaball. The favorable
>
> selective effect of targeting foes without affecting friends should also be
> considered in the power of the spell, but I'll keep my point simple.
While I agree with the philosophy of the drain calculation (i.e. two spells so
combine the codes), it makes me disagree with the spell itself now. No other
published (FASA) spell is such a mishmash of two spell categories. Now-- who's
found the exception? (I just know someone will)...
The alternative I see is designing two spells and stacking them (if that rule is
still in 3rd). Still, that would work very poorly, as the detection spell is
cast once, and the manabolt is cast at least once. Take a look at those rules if
you can. +2 to drain resistance, split pool, etc.
> There is one consideration with regards to this idea, and all though I
> personally don't mind, the consideration should be taken seriously. By
> utilizing the spell-design systems in this merged sense, you do after a
> fashion create a "smart spell" of sorts.
That's my objection. Plus nothing similar in the SR grimoire. It's something
like the "Slay Brains" spell I saw somewhere.
> Also, by implementing this alternative, you also bring into question why
> then a spell such as "Slay Trolls" would work as the system currently
> stands, because somehow the spell in question must be able to identify a
> Troll vs. an Ork vs. a Human vs. a Dwarf...etc...ad nauseum.
Simple argument: Because it is in the book. Complex reason: Not really - such a
limitation is fairly obvious - it isn't like the combat spell is scanning for an
aversion to twinkies - repressed or not, but it does give the confusion
(potentially massive) for shapechanged targets (hit as normal, spells ignore
other spells), disguises, crossdressers, etc. Most of these situations can be
worked out within the existing rules, but get complicated. Of course, everyone
out here loves complications! My explanation for this is a combat spell can do
"detect" but cannot do "analyse." That way, you can create a spell
like Slay
humans (which has a detect humans effect built-in), but cannot create Slay
racist (which would have analyze / mind probe effect). Slay computer (including
detect computer), but not Slay focus (which requires analyse magic / device).
Minimally, Race is apparently the one distinction a combat spell can make (there
is no slay females, males, etc.), along with doors, inanimate objects, vehicles,
and Dragons (those are published variants).
While I don't mind such a spell, I do mind giving it to a character with
magical theory of 1. Breaking the rules of magic isn't easy, or cheap. I could
accept dragons having such magic, advanced users (12-15 range), etc.
The other interpretation is these spells are a closely guarded secret by
most high powers --intelligence agencies, FBI, Dragons, etc. and they
deliberately haven't published them or the related work. That would mean a lot
of hacking into major Gov't and other systems, major risk, and major reprisals
to get the information. Such groups would want to keep that information secret,
and if someone happens to simultaneously develop, as soon as word got out, there
would be major consequences.
>> 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.)
An interpretation I'd not considered. In that case, the spell also wouldn't work
against goons, right? It would only work vs. particular *unnamed* enemy - thus a
weaker form of slay individual. Sure, that I'd accept.
_____________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
