Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

User Profile

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
  • Source
Clear All
new posts

  • Aleph
    replied to Avoid Vampire mind control
    Yeah, I think you're rigth. While all the parameters need to be defined before the spell it's cast, one could argue that not all spells need to define a specific target.

    For instance: to summon a ball of fire that you control with your mind. Concentration spells like that one don't require to define a specific target. Also Correspondence can find generic stuff as long as you provide the Spheres that define it's "type" .

    I think a case could be made that a spell can be trusted to chose it's targets on it's own once released. Like as if one summoned a homing missile...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by Aleph; 01-07-2022, 09:09 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aleph
    replied to Avoid Vampire mind control
    I think a case could be made that, since you're casting the effect beforehand (defining duration, targets, rolling Arete, etc...all beforehand)...then the target it's outside the range of your senses. The spell it's being casted over a hipotetical Mind/Dominate/etc.. user that isn't there (and may not even exist - a magic that affects your mind may be a trigger that happens when someone enters in a room, like a magical trap, for instance).

    It wouldn't be outlandish to say that for such a target one needs Correspondence. Note that most, if not all, examples of triggered effects are...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by Aleph; 01-07-2022, 12:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aleph
    replied to The Kindred Curse
    While Spirit 5 can affect the soul, all the cases of spiritual possesion I know (changing bodies, shifting your soul/consciousness into an object or vice versa) employed Mind 5. One could argue that the result would be a mindless husk w/o at least that. And doing it with Mind and no Spirit?...I'm not so sure (maybe the spirit tags along, maybe the result it's souless)



    It may or may not turn into a vampire again, depending if the Curse has ties to the soul or not

    There's a lot of "may or may not" here because the Curse was left deliberately vague in the...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by Aleph; 01-07-2022, 10:49 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • M20 stance about Orphans it's that they're not a different type of mage, the distinction it's social in nature. Orphans can be as powerful and driven as institutionalized mages, so much so that there's not even a distinction in the amount of Spheres you get from character generation (even when one could think that being part of an Institution dedicate to magick would allow someone easier access to magical learning - thus Spheres).

    OOC, the point of Orphans it's that they're not qualitatively different from other mages. They don't lack anything but resources, that come with obligations...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Note that Hunter Spheres aren't exactly the same, they do offer a little more punch at some levels. Still, you're likely correct in that some powers even a young Sorcerer would have access to, may be hard to replicate under those conditions ... better don't think to much about it

    Elder vampires can make infinite actions per turn in Hunter's core. And Demons can create other splats, including Werewolves and Mages, in their Enemy book (and it's suggested that may have created the supernatural - yet mages can make Demons in *their* Hunter books. So, what came first the demon or the mage?...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Yeah, well. My point was that this perspective changing shows that different rules can represent the same Sorcery. These were, as some say, OOC changes. There was an authorial desicion to make Mage 2e and 1e perspectives to be factualy wrong - and not like they're "different sorcerers", but more like: Mages are too proud of themselves, and confirmation bias often proves them rigth - so.

    There was a retcon (several of them): That's for certain. The thing is, not having a better canonical source for 20th era, one could always think there was another retcon. And if that's a...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Hunter it's all Revised (It's 1e only in the sense that there wasn't another). It also comes, if I'm not mistaken, after most Mage: Revised books.

    However, it's perspective about sorcerers being weaker, inferior, etc...I think it's not a commentary on Mage, but rather than Hunter perspective it's limited. Hunter perspective it's that of "you will kill this people", and most Sorcerers are exactly what's being described. That is: on the weak end. Even Sorcerer Sorcerers start with only 6 dots (typically in more than one Path), and one or two rituals. That's "a few tricks"...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Sorry for misinterpreting your intent.

    As a matter of Focus. Focus for mages rarely represents a lessened potential - certainly not the way not having the Yearning does for Sorcerers. Gutter Magick it's a no less valid road for Ascencion, Power or whatever - your magic(k) can be every bit as potent as that of a High Wizard.

    From what was transpiring in the tread, I would read that's not the same for Sorcerers. Practice matters, "not knowing what you're doing" matters. Apparently. Unless I was also misinterpreting that part too. I think there's an idea that needs...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • The way I've interpreted their magical hierarchy it's that everyone uses High Ritual but not everyone can make it work the same. There's those that were taught Hermetism but can't do much with it (represented by Occult, now Esoterica would be better), those that can apply Sorcery with their teachings, and those that do Magic(k).

    If anything, the "least" users can activate purely "mundane" magic (or magick) - like when demon summoning rituals don't require Paths nor Spheres to use (but you really shouldn't do it, because Paths & Spheres allow you to protect...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by Aleph; 01-02-2022, 01:25 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • In WoD, I would call a dabbler in medicine someone that mechanically has 1 dot in Medicine, and an expert (or someone who's deeply invested on it as a science and not just a tool) to someone who has 4-5. I would never use the words "dabbbler in X" to define someone who's *not* using X, but something fundamentaly different, with different rules

    And that's the key here: I could use HH2 Paths to represent a Sorcerer that's *not* a "dabbler" by...giving the Sorcerer various Paths, or Paths at lvl 5 instead of 1 or 2 dots, ┬┐how's that different from not being a "dabbler",...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by Aleph; 01-02-2022, 11:59 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • I understand the idea, and could like it ... but the thing is: They kinda are, in a way.

    The thing about Numina it's that it's all over the place. And it just happens that sorcery as presented in previous books it's also - as you could say - weaker and mechanically not the same ... AND Sorcerer: Revised was kind of a Revised update for that kind of power.

    I don't remember Sorcerer: Revised stating that sorcerers were supposed to be a splat with powers distinct from the sorcerers presented in previous books. That Paths and Paths aren't the same thing, so to speak - which...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by Aleph; 01-01-2022, 03:56 PM.

    Leave a comment:

No activity results to display
Show More

Profile Sidebar

Collapse
Aleph
Aleph
Member
Last Activity: Yesterday, 07:41 PM
Joined: 12-15-2013
Location:
Working...
X