Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Stephen Guilliot s.guilliot@**********.edu
Subject: A different take on "Slaughter Enemies".
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:16:27 -0500
>Slaughter (Enemies)
> Drain Target Drain Level
>Base Drain - (Damage Level)
>Type: M - -
>Target: W(R) - -
>Duration: S +1 -
>Range: LOS - -
>Area of Effect - (Damage Level+1)
>Restricted Target -1 -
>----------------------------------------------
>Final Drain: (Damage Level+1)
>Ayup. Not that big a deal (game balance-wise)

This is my first post to the ShadowRN mailing list, but I'll be brave and
say "I disagree." The point behind giving restricted-target bonuses in spell
creation is to reward a less effective spell with weaker drain. Spells which
only effect trolls, for example, are less powerful than spells which can
attack anyone. Therefore, we give them a lower drain (-1TN). Also, "combat
spells and damaging manipulation spells, those that channel and focus
significant amounts of lethal energy in a split second, cannot be sustained"
(p.118 Grimoire2).
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? 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.)
Instead of a rewarding a more powerful spell with lower drain, I would 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. Viewing
Slaughter Enemies as both a combat and detection spell, I would suggest
using the "Detection Spell Drain Table" (p.119) as well as the "Combat
Spell
Drain Table".

Slaughter Enemies, type=M target=W(R) range=LOS dur=I drain= +1(drain
level+2)

Area of effect-combat, +1 level
Superficial mind interaction, +1 target
Area of effect-detection, +1 level

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.
Cheers!

Steve.
Message no. 2
From: NeoJudas neojudas@******************.com
Subject: A different take on "Slaughter Enemies".
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:11:33 -0500
From: "Stephen Guilliot" <s.guilliot@**********.edu>
Subject: A different take on "Slaughter Enemies".


> This is my first post to the ShadowRN mailing list, but I'll be brave and
> say "I disagree."

Bravo!!! A newbie with an attitude!!! Bravo!!!

>The point behind giving restricted-target bonuses in spell
> creation is to reward a less effective spell with weaker drain. Spells
which
> only effect trolls, for example, are less powerful than spells which can
> attack anyone. Therefore, we give them a lower drain (-1TN). Also, "combat
> spells and damaging manipulation spells, those that channel and focus
> significant amounts of lethal energy in a split second, cannot be
sustained"
> (p.118 Grimoire2).

All of course is correct.

> 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? 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.)

That is the intended goal.

> Instead of a rewarding a more powerful spell with lower drain, I would
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.
Viewing
> Slaughter Enemies as both a combat and detection spell, I would suggest
> using the "Detection Spell Drain Table" (p.119) as well as the "Combat
Spell
> Drain Table".
>
> Slaughter Enemies, type=M target=W(R) range=LOS dur=I drain= +1(drain
> level+2)
>
> Area of effect-combat, +1 level
> Superficial mind interaction, +1 target
> Area of effect-detection, +1 level
>
> 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.
> Cheers!

This is actually an excellent way of viewing the actual spell design for
this concept, and is probably a more game-balancing concept when viewed
overall.

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. And although I personally think
this is just fine, the idea will often meet with significant resistance
amongst many players and GM's who have very specific, very resistant to
change, viewpoints.

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.

Again, I personally really like your suggestion here, but I also see where
this could raise many questions.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
J. Keith Henry
Hoosier Hacker House (http://www.hoosierhackerhouse.com/)
Winstar Tech Support and Provisioning (www.winstar.com)
Message no. 3
From: Alfredo B Alves dghost@****.com
Subject: A different take on "Slaughter Enemies".
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 01:51:48 -0500
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:16:27 -0500 "Stephen Guilliot"
<s.guilliot@**********.edu> writes:
<SNIP>
> >Final Drain: (Damage Level+1)
> >Ayup. Not that big a deal (game balance-wise)

> This is my first post to the ShadowRN mailing list, but I'll be
> brave and
> say "I disagree."
<SNIP>

Ahem. Not to discourage you, but I meant compared to the post I was
replying to. Phil Smith said that the spell would have a drain of (damage
level). I was just correcting Phil. I actually agree with you. As was
said in the Hero RPG, a limitation that does not limit a character is not
a limitation. :)

--
D. Ghost
Profanity is the one language all programmers know best
- Troutman's 6th programming postulate.

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 4
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: A different take on "Slaughter Enemies".
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:41:36 +0200
According to Stephen Guilliot, at 23:16 on 14 Jun 00, the word on the
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
Message no. 5
From: Simon and Fiona sfuller@******.com.au
Subject: A different take on "Slaughter Enemies".
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:12:21 +1000
-----Original Message-----
From: Gurth <gurth@******.nl>
To: shadowrn@*********.com <shadowrn@*********.com>
Date: Thursday, June 15, 2000 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: A different take on "Slaughter Enemies".



>The Chocolate Mousse effect :)

heh heh. I'm really beginning to think that Shadowrun gamers are basically
identical the world over.
But I digress.
Wouldn't it be cool if you could 'program' spells when you quicken/anchor
them? Like having a Detect Enemy spell that triggers a manabolt spell that
automatically targets the detected enemy. Or an arrow with a Ram spell on it
that will trigger when the arrow hits, unless a Detect Life spell activates,
in which case a Death Touch is triggered instead.
Message no. 6
From: NeoJudas neojudas@******************.com
Subject: A different take on "Slaughter Enemies".
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 06:14:57 -0500
From: "Simon and Fiona" <sfuller@******.com.au>
Subject: Re: A different take on "Slaughter Enemies".


> >The Chocolate Mousse effect :)
>
> heh heh. I'm really beginning to think that Shadowrun gamers are basically
> identical the world over.
> But I digress.
> Wouldn't it be cool if you could 'program' spells when you quicken/anchor
> them? Like having a Detect Enemy spell that triggers a manabolt spell that
> automatically targets the detected enemy. Or an arrow with a Ram spell on
it
> that will trigger when the arrow hits, unless a Detect Life spell
activates,
> in which case a Death Touch is triggered instead.

In our older games, we used to call this spell-design option "Link" and
integrated at the time of the spell's design, prior to learning. Please
note, we also have the option that any spell can be designed as if it were
to work ONLY on a magical item, such as if it were anchored onto a weapon
foci sword.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
J. Keith Henry
Hoosier Hacker House (http://www.hoosierhackerhouse.com/)
Winstar Tech Support and Provisioning (www.winstar.com)
Message no. 7
From: Damian Sharp zadoc@***.neu.edu
Subject: A different take on "Slaughter Enemies".
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 07:22:51 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Simon and Fiona wrote:

> >The Chocolate Mousse effect :)
>
> heh heh. I'm really beginning to think that Shadowrun gamers are basically
> identical the world over.
> But I digress.
> Wouldn't it be cool if you could 'program' spells when you quicken/anchor
> them? Like having a Detect Enemy spell that triggers a manabolt spell that
> automatically targets the detected enemy. Or an arrow with a Ram spell on it
> that will trigger when the arrow hits, unless a Detect Life spell activates,
> in which case a Death Touch is triggered instead.

Well, that's what Anchoring's for.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Damian Sharp of Real Life, College Student |
| Zauviir Seldszar of Wildlands, Scribe of House Maritym |
| Xavier Kindric of Shandlin's Ferry, member of Valindar |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't speak Latin in front of the books"
Message no. 8
From: Fanguad fanguad@****.rit.edu
Subject: A different take on "Slaughter Enemies".
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 08:19:30 -0400
Gurth said:

> 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.)

Of course, anyone you hit with a manabolt would soon become an
enemy (or dead, natch) :)

-- 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
Message no. 9
From: Stephen Guilliot s.guilliot@**********.edu
Subject: A different take on "Slaughter Enemies".
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:04:15 -0500
From: "NeoJudas" <neojudas@******************.com>
>By utilizing the spell-design systems in this merged sense, you do after a
>fashion create a "smart spell" of sorts.

That's right, but anyone who wants a spell to differentiate targets based
upon their mental state is asking to do exactly that. Of course, a GM is
always free to arbitrarily limit the effects of "smart spells" or ban them
altogether. A large part of spell creation is maintaining game balance, and
when it comes to game balance, the GM doesn't have to have a reason.

>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.

I would say the difference between "Slay Trolls" and "Slay Enemies"
lies in
their respective targets. They both selectively attack some targets without
harming others, but that's where the similarity ends. "Slay Trolls" only
affects trolls because it CAN'T harm non-trolls, and therefore gets a -1TN
drain for having restricted targets. "Slay Enemies" only affects enemies
because it WON'T harm friends or neutrals. To do this it must discern the
surface thoughts of a target before affecting him. In contrast, "Slay
Trolls" is limited to trolls because it can't affect the non-troll biology,
psyche, or aura. Very, very, very different spells.

From: naughty@********.com.au
>There is always the indirect target method - for example do a ram spell on
>a car. It WILL hurt the occupants (although maybe not as badly as a well
>aimed powerbolt).

True, but your occupants are hurt as an indirect consequence of hurting the
car. The magic itself did not inflict the damage on them, though it was
ultimately responsible. Even in this case, the mage must see his target (the
car), and if others inside are hurt as well, that's icing on the cake. On
the other hand, a manaball (or derivative) directly affects the targets,
therefore the caster must see them. I suppose it's possible that a Sam will
be manabolted while holding a knife over someone, the Sam dies, the knife
drops, and wounds that someone. Such is the tragedy of war.

From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.com>
>Not to discourage you, but I meant compared to the post I was
>replying to. Phil Smith said that the spell would have a drain of (damage
>level). I was just correcting Phil.

No problem, D. Ghost. I didn't mean my post to sound personally or
necessarily directed at you. Your's just happened to be the last "Slaughter
Enemies" post I read, that's all.

Thanks for the comments, everyone.

Steve.
Message no. 10
From: Stephen Guilliot s.guilliot@**********.edu
Subject: A different take on "Slaughter Enemies".
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:21:16 -0500
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
>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.

Very good point, but I think the benefits of "Slaughter Enemies" far
outweigh this detriment. Enough so, that "Slaughter Enemies" should still
not get -1TN drain for restricted targets.

>Only for combat spells. Damaging manipulation spells can hit targets you
>can't see...

True, true.

Steve.
Message no. 11
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: A different take on "Slaughter Enemies".
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:37:35 +0200
According to Simon and Fiona, at 21:12 on 15 Jun 00, the word on the
street was...

> >The Chocolate Mousse effect :)
>
> heh heh. I'm really beginning to think that Shadowrun gamers are basically
> identical the world over.

There's no better way of explaining some of the possibilities of a
smartlink than by saying "Have you seen Top Secret?"

> Wouldn't it be cool if you could 'program' spells when you
> quicken/anchor them? Like having a Detect Enemy spell that triggers a
> manabolt spell that automatically targets the detected enemy. Or an
> arrow with a Ram spell on it that will trigger when the arrow hits,
> unless a Detect Life spell activates, in which case a Death Touch is
> triggered instead.

That's not too hard. All you need to do is anchor two spells, each with
the right type of detection spell, onto the same object.

--
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
Message no. 12
From: kawaii trunks@********.org
Subject: A different take on "Slaughter Enemies".
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:41:42 -0400
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 1:37 PM


> According to Simon and Fiona, at 21:12 on 15 Jun 00, the word on the
> street was...
>
> > >The Chocolate Mousse effect :)
> >
> > heh heh. I'm really beginning to think that Shadowrun gamers are
basically
> > identical the world over.
>
> There's no better way of explaining some of the possibilities of a
> smartlink than by saying "Have you seen Top Secret?"
>
> > Wouldn't it be cool if you could 'program' spells when you
> > quicken/anchor them? Like having a Detect Enemy spell that triggers a
> > manabolt spell that automatically targets the detected enemy. Or an
> > arrow with a Ram spell on it that will trigger when the arrow hits,
> > unless a Detect Life spell activates, in which case a Death Touch is
> > triggered instead.
>
> That's not too hard. All you need to do is anchor two spells, each with
> the right type of detection spell, onto the same object.
>

You could do that, but what's the point? ;) Just spray the area with a
Vindicator and let God sort 'em out. =P

Ever lovable and always scrappy,
kawaii
Message no. 13
From: NeoJudas neojudas@******************.com
Subject: A different take on "Slaughter Enemies".
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:54:44 -0500
From: "Stephen Guilliot" <s.guilliot@**********.edu>
Subject: Re: A different take on "Slaughter Enemies".


<BIG SNIP!!!>
> Thanks for the comments, everyone.
> Steve.


Hey Steve, I think almost all of us would agree that having questions and
remarks such as the ones you have posted are most refreshing and enjoyable
to have.

Also, if you come up with a small list of examples of spells of this nature
including the spell mods, I would LOVE to put them up on HHH. I'd do it
myself, but a recent project suggestion has shown a LOT of response (I am
still hoping to hear back from my favorite guys from Central and South
America, but Europe is filling out faster than I had thought possible), and
I want to make certain the initial support I can give to those volunteers is
the most positive I can.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
NeoJudas ("K" to Friends)
"Children of the Kernel: Reborn"
(neojudas@******************.com)
Hoosier Hacker House (http://www.hoosierhackerhouse.com/)
Message no. 14
From: Keith Duthie psycho@*********.co.nz
Subject: A different take on "Slaughter Enemies".
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:59:51 +1200 (NZST)
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Gurth wrote:

> 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.)
I'd expect the spell to only work on targets who are actively thinking
hostile thoughts about the caster (which generally means targets who know
you're there and have some reason to not like you). Like, for example,
that yakuza guy who is paranoid about non-yaks. Or, of course, the racist
human/elf/orc/troll over there who hates [insert caster's race here].

> 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.
I'm perfectly happy with an area effect slay enemies spell. It's only
going to be useful in combat situations away from non-combatants[1], and
if there's any strife between party members...

As an aside, IIRC, a mouse shaman would be immune to this spell.

[1] you're suddenly in the middle of a firefight. Are you friendly towards
that mage over there who's flinging around lethal spells? I don't think
so.
--
Understanding is a three edged sword. Do you *want* to get the point?
http://www.albatross.co.nz/~psycho/ O- -><-
Message no. 15
From: Alfredo B Alves dghost@****.com
Subject: A different take on "Slaughter Enemies".
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 02:19:31 -0500
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:59:51 +1200 (NZST) Keith Duthie
<psycho@*********.co.nz> writes:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Gurth wrote:
>
> > 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.)

Actually, I don't think the enemies have to be long term.

> I'd expect the spell to only work on targets who are actively
> thinking
> hostile thoughts about the caster (which generally means targets who
> know
> you're there and have some reason to not like you). Like, for
> example,
> that yakuza guy who is paranoid about non-yaks. Or, of course, the
> racist
> human/elf/orc/troll over there who hates [insert caster's race
> here].
<SNIP>

Nope. I don't think so. The aforementioned Yak would have to 1) know you
exist; 2) know you are a non-yak; and 3) be actively having a hostile
disposition towards you. (the racist would substitute 'know you are
[insert race]' for qualifier number 2.)

The spell is not detect my potential enemies. Nor is it detect enemies of
people like me. It's detect MY enemies.

--
D. Ghost
Profanity is the one language all programmers know best
- Troutman's 6th programming postulate.

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 16
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: A different take on "Slaughter Enemies".
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:49:20 +0200
According to Keith Duthie, at 17:59 on 16 Jun 00, the word on the street
was...

> I'd expect the spell to only work on targets who are actively thinking
> hostile thoughts about the caster (which generally means targets who know
> you're there and have some reason to not like you). Like, for example,
> that yakuza guy who is paranoid about non-yaks. Or, of course, the racist
> human/elf/orc/troll over there who hates [insert caster's race here].

That's more or less my view as well, except I'd also let spells that have
a limited target "Enemies" work against people who may not be hostile to
you at this very moment, but who have been your enemies in the past and
would be again the moment you ran into them. For example, if you and your
next-door neighbor hate each other, a Detect Enemies spell would detect
the neighbor even if he wasn't thinking about how much he hates you.

> > 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.
> I'm perfectly happy with an area effect slay enemies spell. It's only
> going to be useful in combat situations away from non-combatants[1], and
> if there's any strife between party members...

I don't quite understand what you mean -- a spell like this would be at
its most useful when you're _near_ non-combatants, not when you're away
from them. When you are away from them, and everyone nearby is an enemy,
then you're getting a lower Drain basically for free.

--
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
Message no. 17
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*****.com
Subject: A different take on "Slaughter Enemies".
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:53:13 -0500
:> 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.


Its dubious as a single target spell. Who's enemies does it slay? The
mages? Why? If another mage learns the spell, does it still only slay the
first mages enemies?
Using detection spell modifiers helps the balance some, but technically
detection spells work by targeting the person who is gaining the
information, and granting them a magical sense. IOW, to know who his
enemies are, the mage would have to be the target of the spell.
Also, the spell is self contrdictory. By defintion, anybody you target
with a combat spell IS an enemy. That emotional energy is required for the
spell to work.

Mongoose


_____________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Message no. 18
From: Keith Duthie psycho@*********.co.nz
Subject: A different take on "Slaughter Enemies".
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 20:35:23 +1200 (NZST)
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Gurth wrote:

> I don't quite understand what you mean -- a spell like this would be at
> its most useful when you're _near_ non-combatants, not when you're away
> from them. When you are away from them, and everyone nearby is an enemy,
> then you're getting a lower Drain basically for free.
Unless he already knows you, a non-combatant will see you as an enemy once
you go on the offensive. So the area-effect spell is fairly pointless,
whichever way you look at it.

--
Understanding is a three edged sword. Do you *want* to get the point?
http://www.albatross.co.nz/~psycho/ O- -><-

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about A different take on "Slaughter Enemies"., you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.