| From: | Fanguad fanguad@****.rit.edu |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Slaughter Enemies (restricted target combat spells) |
| Date: | Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:46:36 -0400 |
> > It can be argued that the spell would affect targets that the caster
> > 'believes' should be targets. This wouldn't work for abusive players,
> > who would 'assume' everything should be affected, but kind of a
> > way to throw twists in.
> >
> > This would explain the half detection/half combat spell type.
> > Instead of the spell targeting only certain types, the caster restricts
> > himself, i.e.
> >
> > Player: My "Slay Humans" spell won't work on that guy.
> > Other Player: Yea it will, he's a poser
> > Player: No he isn't, it won't work.
>
> What is the result, though? What happens?
I was saying that I can be _argued_ that the detection part of the
spell is not based on magical detection, but rather on what the
caster perceived. Basically, I'm saying that it is possible that
disguises will fool the mage.
This would eliminate the whole question of whether or not the Slay
<somthing> spells are a combat spell with a free detection spell
thrown in.
As you said in another post, though, CAN of worms.
It might be interesting to have two versions of the spell. One that
can be fooled by disguises, one not. Have the player choose
which one he wants at the time of learning it.
Some spells might benefit unduly, such as Slay Enemy, if it were
based on perception, and even though I'm being the Devil's
Advocate here, I think I'd have to ban a PC-perception-based Slay
spell, simply to cut down on abuse.
Did that make any more sense?
-- Fanguad
---------------------------------
"Tech Support, Greg speaking."
"QUICK! How do I change my wallpaper?"
"Well, it's pretty easy. I assume you want to change the
appearance of your desktop?"
"I need to get a picture off my background!"
"Oh, I see... Did someone accidentally set a porn picture
as their wallpaper, and their wife or mom is about
to show up?"
"PLEASE HURRY!"
-- Iliad, User Friendly
