| From: | Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Sus. DMs |
| Date: | Tue, 25 Apr 1995 00:08:21 +1000 |
> Philip Hayward writes:
So you think I'm your alter ego eh? <grin>
> > > Emperor style lightening :)
>
> I know, I never had plans for using more to see how it would turn out.
> I said reaction vs. successes so I'll change the TN of the spell from 4
> to 6, it'll reduce successes therefore the reaction test. I was thinking
> that if the victim won the reaction test and rolled away the mage would
> have to recast (and drop from another deadly wound)
What were you planning for the TN of the Reaction test? If you make it the
number of successes, then it's double jeopardy. Better make it something
else. Otherwise it *seems* OK at an initial glance.
> [Improved Inferno]
>
> what can i say - ouch! I'd never use it even if allowed it in my game
> I just can't stand deadly drain let alone TN of 12 at force one
Well, I could see some quite useful applications of the spell. Not often,
but those times when the teams *screwed* something shocking, a spell like
this could just pull you right out. If the magician doesn't cast it, then
everyone dies. If he does, then he passes out, but hopefully his team mates
can clean up whatever scragglers remain after the spell. Remember, the
efficiency of this spell depends on when drain is taken. If one takes drain
at the moment of casting then it is absolutely useless, if drain is not
taken until the spell is dropped OTOH... And it _also_ requires a ruling to
allow Sustained Damaging Manipulations. But if these two requirements are
fulfilled, then this and similar spells can be _very_ effective. And very
much so abused too I'd imagine.
--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au
(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
