Speaking of which, update time for everyone! (except Koliup)




GJC wrote:Two guys with basically the same name in a discussion about a character getting cloned.
There's gotta be a good joke in here somewhere.


If we aren't using a rule, it should not be in the rules document. The extension of the "we're keeping them for inspiration" principle is to keep all obsolete and/or terrible rules suggestions on hand for "inspiration"- and that's crap. A rules document needs to be accurate, easily referenced, and as streamlined as possible. As things are written right now, our main rules document- linked from the first post- says that we are using those rules on magic, and that document says that we are using those spells. There's not so much as a disclaimer otherwise in either location.0beron wrote:*facepalm* Okay Exate I've said it once before...the spells themselves are suggestions that give a general idea of what a school can do. Ultimately it doesn't matter how unbalanced they are, because Kaed isn't really using them anyway. And I for one don't feel like deleting it and essentially wasting the work of whoever wrote it originally. It's nice to have something there to spark the player's ideas and inspire them. If you don't like it, ignore it.
While that appears to be the intent, what's actually written is more arbitrary. Findamancy, Mathamancy, Lookamancy, Shockamancy and Rhyme-o-mancy, all have full listings in spite of being hardly featured in the comic- we've seen no action or explanations from casters of those types, and only seen them used in some modified form; scrolls, artifacts, links, natural effects, and so forth. Signamancy and Carnymancy have all gotten at least as much screen time, and Carnymancy even has a significant caster character and multiple spell effects. Weirdomancy and Date-a-mancy have at least gotten mention and a bit of discussion, so it's not like they're less prominent than say Findamancy is.0beron wrote:As for which ones are available, I'm totally failing to see your point there. The disciplines that are not available are all ones that we either haven't seen at all in-comic, or ones that are very poorly explained. It would be unrealistic and contrary to the purpose of the game (faithfulness to the comic) to try and extrapolate them based on our own ideas.


These schools have had the main core of their function explained. They didn't get much screen-time, but what time they did get was pretty clear.Exate wrote:Findamancy, Mathamancy, Lookamancy, Shockamancy and Rhyme-o-mancy, all have full listings in spite of being hardly featured in the comic- we've seen no action or explanations from casters of those types, and only seen them used in some modified form; scrolls, artifacts, links, natural effects, and so forth.
By contrast, these have gotten a fair degree of screen-time, but have lacked clear explanations. Their explanations have been very open-ended and susceptible to different interpretation.Exate wrote:Signamancy and Carnymancy have all gotten at least as much screen time, and Carnymancy even has a significant caster character and multiple spell effects.
What comic are you reading? If we have even ever heard of Wierdomancy in the comic, we certainly haven't gotten anything remotely resembling an explanation.Exate wrote:Weirdomancy [has] at least gotten mention and a bit of discussion.
GJC wrote:Two guys with basically the same name in a discussion about a character getting cloned.
There's gotta be a good joke in here somewhere.










GJC wrote:Two guys with basically the same name in a discussion about a character getting cloned.
There's gotta be a good joke in here somewhere.





Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest