01-04-2014, 02:26 PM | #1 |
Join Date: Nov 2006
|
[DF] Do other DF players have multiple types of Insubstantial?
I am curious if other people playing DF have multiple types of Insubstantial. I have a few. One is spiritual which is for ghosts and other spirits such. The other is ethereal which is a state of matter out of phase with the material world and astral which is extradimensionally out of phase with reality. Ethereal and astral creatures need special weapons to hit them that ghost weapon does not allow interaction. Ghost weapon in my would is a type of magic that make a material weapon extend into the spirit world but not interact with things out of phase with reality like some Elder Things. A weapon needs to be enchanted with Astral weapon to harm insubstantial Elder Things.
Does anyone have any other ideas? Thanks. |
01-04-2014, 07:21 PM | #2 |
Join Date: Nov 2006
|
Re: [DF] Do other DF players have multiple types of Insubstantial?
I think that I will need to have two spells for Insubstantial, one would be Astral Body which would put the wizard out of phase with reality while Ghost Body would turn the wizard's body into a spirit.
|
01-04-2014, 07:50 PM | #3 |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: [DF] Do other DF players have multiple types of Insubstantial?
Multiple types of Insubstantial probably aren't that uncommon, although they usually aren't quite so explicit. I think it's typically "insubstantial" vs "special insubstantial," wherein the latter has more stuff that can target them, rather than "insubstantial type A," "insubstantial type B," etc, wherein there's no overlap of what can target the creatures.
I'd say there's nothing really wrong with having multiple types, although it would probably be appropriate to have spells (and thus enchantments) that affect them be a bit cheaper - after all, I think Ghost Weapon as-is is meant to affect all insubstantial foes, so if it only works against spirits, it should be cheaper. Likewise with Astral Weapon and Ethereal Weapon. Ideally, you'll base the energy reduction on how common such foes roughly are. |
|
|