Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5868450" data-attributes="member: 54877">First two are correct, and the third is close to what I was envisioning. It wouldn't always be strange powers wielded--sometimes the knowledge alone is sufficient. Then the last two are supernatural versus natural--albeit in a fantastical setting. So if you channel or call on some &quot;greater power&quot; who does the heavy lifting--even if only to find your castle keys--that's supernatural. If you get the horse to do what you want, that's natural. If you get the griffen to do what you want, which is break the laws of physics flying with you on his back, that's probably also &quot;natural&quot;. &nbsp;The &quot;magic&quot; of any group would tend to extend the idiom. So a master of arcane spells probalby can't get a spell to have a forest temporarily grow thick, but a &quot;natural&quot; magic user can. (And a &quot;cunning&quot; magic user could fake it with illusions.) This even extends to prowess. Their magic makes them leap longer, fight better, etc.&nbsp;Another way to think of it is to picture characters, and ask which idiom they are usually on. This is another slant on your how the character handles the obstacle. Point being here, that I find it easier to get a good match, typically with one primary and one secondary, than I do with classes, not matter how broadly or narrowly conceived.&nbsp;Conan? Lots of prowess as his first choice, some cunning when necessary. Gandalf--who cares if he is a wizard, bard, cleric, &quot;spell sword&quot;, etc. He is a wielder of strange lore, and then you bring in a secondary of cunning, natural, or supernatural, depending upon how you want to explain talking to giant eagles, fighting balors, etc. But no doubt Gandalf's approach is to &quot;know&quot; things, whether he uses actual magic to take advantage of this knowledge or not. (And of course, Gandalf is always a hard case.)&nbsp;Is the Gray Mouser a rogue, &quot;smart&quot; fighter, &quot;skilled&quot; fighter, or something more exotic with multicassing to cover that trace of magic, such as bard? Is Fafhrd a barbarian, ranger, or fighter? Who cares? The Mouser is clearly based on cunning, with some secondary influences for prowess to get him out of trouble and even less influence from arcane to get him into it. Meanwhile, Fafhrd is prowess first, with a touch of natural or supernatural (depending again on where you want to draw the lines on those two).&nbsp;Presumably, one could replace arcane, natural, and supernatural with a slightly different set of idioms, and the fits would be even more obvious.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5868450, member: 54877"] First two are correct, and the third is close to what I was envisioning. It wouldn't always be strange powers wielded--sometimes the knowledge alone is sufficient. Then the last two are supernatural versus natural--albeit in a fantastical setting. So if you channel or call on some "greater power" who does the heavy lifting--even if only to find your castle keys--that's supernatural. If you get the horse to do what you want, that's natural. If you get the griffen to do what you want, which is break the laws of physics flying with you on his back, that's probably also "natural". The "magic" of any group would tend to extend the idiom. So a master of arcane spells probalby can't get a spell to have a forest temporarily grow thick, but a "natural" magic user can. (And a "cunning" magic user could fake it with illusions.) This even extends to prowess. Their magic makes them leap longer, fight better, etc. Another way to think of it is to picture characters, and ask which idiom they are usually on. This is another slant on your how the character handles the obstacle. Point being here, that I find it easier to get a good match, typically with one primary and one secondary, than I do with classes, not matter how broadly or narrowly conceived. Conan? Lots of prowess as his first choice, some cunning when necessary. Gandalf--who cares if he is a wizard, bard, cleric, "spell sword", etc. He is a wielder of strange lore, and then you bring in a secondary of cunning, natural, or supernatural, depending upon how you want to explain talking to giant eagles, fighting balors, etc. But no doubt Gandalf's approach is to "know" things, whether he uses actual magic to take advantage of this knowledge or not. (And of course, Gandalf is always a hard case.) Is the Gray Mouser a rogue, "smart" fighter, "skilled" fighter, or something more exotic with multicassing to cover that trace of magic, such as bard? Is Fafhrd a barbarian, ranger, or fighter? Who cares? The Mouser is clearly based on cunning, with some secondary influences for prowess to get him out of trouble and even less influence from arcane to get him into it. Meanwhile, Fafhrd is prowess first, with a touch of natural or supernatural (depending again on where you want to draw the lines on those two). Presumably, one could replace arcane, natural, and supernatural with a slightly different set of idioms, and the fits would be even more obvious. [/QUOTE]

Verification