[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Slope: Ch 12] New Type of Healing Spell & Death Magic.



It's true the SJ healing spell is dull: classic industrial magic. But the game isn't really about the healing process, it's meant to be about adventuring. The purpose of the healing spell is to restore the party's health so that they can go off and do something interesting, without the need for a delay that will either be boring or skipped over. An even more powerful spell would do that more effectively. I hesitantly and tentatively favour that idea.

Making the spell interesting in itself is laudable to some extent. It's got limited scope because the decision is basically just made by one person, not the party cooperating, so it can't be fun for very many people at once.

But basically, wounds aren't fun. Make the battle about victory and survival, and as long as everyone goes home to their family it doesn't matter if they got chewed on a little. If the wounds don't matter then battles can be made harder and nastier without worrying the party will be crippled. GMs who choose to have outdoor adventures with long delays between battles are close to doing this already.

Rick, maybe we should cut The Slope from this? Those players interested in these issues are probably signed up to brainiac anyway, or should be encouraged to do so.

--
David


On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 at 09:37, Rick <rick_ww@lightspeed.ca> wrote:
Hi David,
  The reasons below is why I wouldn’t use this spell in my campaign.
I didn’t want healing magic in combat, but I wanted to speed up the
out of adventure waiting around.

> On Jun 19, 2018, at 7:55 PM, David Bofinger <bofinger.david@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> I think that might be a bad thing: if after healing everyone is OK except the healing wizard has distributed organ damage what does the party do? Wait around for him to get better despite everyone else being healthy already? Risk him being killed but try to protect him? Leave him behind in town? All are problematic. I suppose the best strategy might be to use healing to minimise the wounds of the most wounded character.
>
> David

  But given the fact that fast healing is being introduced into TFT, I
was curious what a super powerful version of it would be. 

  The original poster, Melichor, wanted to include a spell where
healing cost the wizard damage and where there is randomness in
the healing spells.  When you have randomness, the spell has to
be a bit better, because magic healing is a resource management
game, and uncertainty makes it harder to manage your resources.

  It is not hard to make super powerful spells.  The trick is to make
them interesting.  Steve Jackson’s fast healing with 3:1 fST to point
healed ratio, is dull.  After combat, the wizard and any apprentices
wait, and soon the whole party is at full ST.  No trade offs, no
decisions.

  With my spell, after the fight the bowman has 3 points of damage.
Do you, the wizard, take another hit, to heal him?  This is a non-trivial
decision.  If you take a hit and then roll a 6 for healing, a bunch of
points are ‘wasted’.  If the bowman had 5 points of damage, ‘should
we heal him’ is an easier question, but then the question arises,
take one point of damage or two?  Taking both at once gives a
bonus to hits healed, but maybe one healing would be good
enough, if you roll well.  (Another tough decision.) If you heal for one
damage, roll poorly, then heal again for one damage, and roll poorly,
you will have buyers remorse, it would have been smarter to do both
at once.

  My spell is very powerful, arguably too powerful, but it has draw
backs that in many ways make Steves fast 3:1 healing spell more
attractive.  And if you prefer THAT spell to my Death Healing spell,
it says something about what is in store for TFT with the new
edition.

  Warm regards, Rick.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The_Slope" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to The_slope+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.