| From: | Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Damage spells, magic, fantasy, logic |
| Date: | Fri, 29 Aug 1997 03:35:56 +0000 |
Why does damaging magic handle things in a fantasy context rather
than one of logical practicality?
What do I mean by that?
Let me ask a question...
What is the most energy - effective manner of killing someone? (with
magic)
Sending an energy current at a target strong enough to fry his armor,
flesh, organs and cook of all his ammo? This is the method seen in
most fantasy games. (As well as the odd death spell, which no less
brutally and inefficiently rips someone's soul from the body or
whatever).
OR:
Sending an electrical shock through the target's heart, causing a
cardiac arrest and thus killing it.
The answer should be obvious. Now, the game's most effective combat
spell, mana bolt, does massive general tissue damage AFAIK.
Mages aren't stupid. (Well, ok,some of them are). So why do they not
have finely tuned killing spells that kills with a minimum of drain?
The answer I am *NOT* looking for is "game balance".
I will try to answer the question myself, but it is just a try.. here
goes: (Hermetic version, mind; it's logical, explainable, unlike the
shamanic, which is probably similar.).
When a mage casts a spell he mentally inserts a 'tap' into the
barrier between the astral and physical plane; he takes this energy
flow and channels it into a 'construct', a spell, for a specific
predetermined effect.
Drain is twofold. One is in the complexity of the construct; the
finer control needed the more complex, the harder, the construct is
to make. The second is damage from directing large amounts of magical
power through a construct. Thus, casting a spell giving cardiac
arrest would in fact be extremely hard, since the construct itself
would be hard to invoke and channel energy through, while a fireball,
with a rather simple construct, is easy to invoke but takes huge
amounts of energy to fuel. Thus you get the situation where mana
bolts, with a comparatively simple construct and no overt demand for
energy is a better, energy wise, solution than a spell designed to
stop someone's heart. Or controlling someone's actions, while
physically harder than controlling someone's thoughts, is easier
after all because it reuires a simpler construct.
But what about the force of the spell? If you lower it you cast the
spell with less energy as well as with less drain, do you not?. Well,
who says it uses less power? The mage goes easy on the control, uses
the energy sloppily; doesn't go for effect effect effect. It's easier
to cast a spell that way - less mental drain.
What do you think?
Also, about my adept power list a while back (Magic Matrix).. after
reading through the Awakenings and the Grimoire I realize it's plain
old *WRONG*; if anyone wants an updated version just give the word.
But with the feedback I got I doubt many's interested. I asked if it
was anything wrong with it, after all.. :/
--
Fade
And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
