Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: [SR3] Geasa
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:57:41 EST
> So, how about this: instead of the present system, allow magical
> characters who lose a Magic attribute point to take a Geas *to get
> the Magic point back.* As long as the character follows the geas,
> their Magic rating remains what it was. If they break the geas, the
> lose the use of that point of Magic until the geas is obeyed again.
> Each Magic point lost would require a seperate geas (unlike the
> present system where a geas is required for every 2 points lost).

I like with one exception. It works well with the concept...you can
still be powerful, but your power is restricted to the use of such
rituals.

My only exception is: Refusing to take the geasa....You called it
the path of the burnout. It seems the path of the burnout is the
other way. Refusing to take the geasa should give a small bonus,
countered by the knowledge that any future loss of magic is
permanent. Perhaps they can premanently "regain" one point of Magic
by refusing to take any Geasa? Just an idea. I like the idea of
geasa (like foci) being a slippery slope that (if you are unwise)
drag you into burnout....thus the mages that refuse to take that path
have some small advantage for the loss of power. Maybe Geasa have an
additional penalty? A greater chance of future magic loss? Yeah,
that's a good idea. When rolling for Magic Loss, incorporate the
number of Geasa the cahracter has. If you use that, then Burnouts
increase their risk in exchange for the benefit, and (in this case
forget that "regain" rule) those that refuse lose magic in the here
and now, but perhaps keep SOME ability for the future....

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.