[Thaumatology] Realms-based magic question

dataweaver · 07-04-2008, 05:53 PM

That said, it might have been better if the multipliers had been based on abstract "breadth of Realm" ratings, with "number of Realms" being presented as a guideline of how many Realms of a given breadth can reasonably coexist without significant overlap: so x5 would be the multiplier for an "Extremely Broad" Realm, with a note that you probably won't find more than two of these coexisting without significant overlap, whereas an "Extremely Narrow" Realm could be purchased at half the usual cost, and would represent something so focused that there might be any number of other such Realms that don't even come close to overlapping. This approach would allow for a more flexible system that allows for a mixture of broad and narrow Realms, such as (in an extreme example) allowing Omnipotence and Insects to coexist as Realms.

Also, the "overlap" concept might result in higher costs. For instance, consider a setting that has both Path Magic (from chapter 5) and Realm Magic existing in parallel: that is, each Realm corresponds to a Path, and shares the Path's skill. (The idea here is to use Realm Magic for supernatural creatures who are somehow attuned to the purview of a given Realm, while Path Magic represents the tools available to "mere mortals".) Between the Paths and the areas not covered by Paths, the number of Realms + Weaknesses easily exceeds a dozen. OTOH, the Paths have a fair amount of overlap, and the areas not covered by any of them aren't all that large; so it wouldn't be unreasonable for the GM to rule that Path-based Realms cost the normal amount per level (e.g., 20 points if there are three levels).

07-04-2008, 05:53 PM	#1
dataweaver Join Date: Aug 2004	Re: [Thaumatology] Realms-based magic question That said, it might have been better if the multipliers had been based on abstract "breadth of Realm" ratings, with "number of Realms" being presented as a guideline of how many Realms of a given breadth can reasonably coexist without significant overlap: so x5 would be the multiplier for an "Extremely Broad" Realm, with a note that you probably won't find more than two of these coexisting without significant overlap, whereas an "Extremely Narrow" Realm could be purchased at half the usual cost, and would represent something so focused that there might be any number of other such Realms that don't even come close to overlapping. This approach would allow for a more flexible system that allows for a mixture of broad and narrow Realms, such as (in an extreme example) allowing Omnipotence and Insects to coexist as Realms. Also, the "overlap" concept might result in higher costs. For instance, consider a setting that has both Path Magic (from chapter 5) and Realm Magic existing in parallel: that is, each Realm corresponds to a Path, and shares the Path's skill. (The idea here is to use Realm Magic for supernatural creatures who are somehow attuned to the purview of a given Realm, while Path Magic represents the tools available to "mere mortals".) Between the Paths and the areas not covered by Paths, the number of Realms + Weaknesses easily exceeds a dozen. OTOH, the Paths have a fair amount of overlap, and the areas not covered by any of them aren't all that large; so it wouldn't be unreasonable for the GM to rule that Path-based Realms cost the normal amount per level (e.g., 20 points if there are three levels).