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

[raito@raito.com]

Really, it's just chewing on something in isolation to any other changes
that might be made. And if we had to wait for a final version, we wouldn't
be discussing it at all.

We all look at it through the lenses of the games we play. And for me,
that view is nearly entirely negative. And for some others. Yet others see
it as positive, or already have their own house rules, etc. I really don't
see it as being much different than many rules discussions here.

Since I din't have access to other rule changes, I have to view this one
in isolation. There may be other rule changes that balance this change
system-wide, but I don't know those. And even if those exist, pulling this
single spell out might make some other imbalance.

Personally, I'd have been glad to see the old rules with various errata
incorporated -- essentially a cleanup of the original. It doesn't look
like that's what's going to happen. I don't get to say because I'm not
writing it.

So far, the only things I've seen here are quick healing and stat caps.
Neither of which I favor, in preference for the original rules. So that
does give me a negative outlook for this new edition, even though it's not
final, nor published at this time.

Neil Gilmore
raito@raito.com

Jeffrey wrote this (I'm happy I'm getting the messages, but formatting
from it has always been odd):

> Simple solution:  If you don't like the spell, don't use it.  If it turns
> out to be something other than what I want it to be, that's what I'll do;
> but I won't be all doom and gloom about it until I get to see what it
> actually looks like in the final form.  And, frankly, I won't be all doom
> and gloom about it even then.  If other people want it, more power to
> them.  So why not just let it ride until you see what it actually is?
>
> By going all negative about it at this early date, it sure SEEMS like you
> (collectively, not just you, raito) want to "prevent" it from even
> existing; and I just don't see the logic there.  But hey, like I said,
> different strokes for different folks.  And if I'm misreading all the
> negativity here, my apologies...but maybe you should look back over some
> of the comments here and think about it...