Sudden Metamagic, Divine Metamagic, and Activated Items

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I was just thinking... if one had the ability to apply metamagic to a
spell without increasing its spell level, could one impart that metamagic
into a spell item, such as a potion or a scroll?

Now, I realize that it's unlikely to work with the Sudden Metamagic
series, at least without having the base Metamagic feat as well,
but what about Divine Metamagic (from Complete Divine)?

If it works, could you "violate" the level limits on items, since the
feat specifically says you're not changing the spell slot of the spell?

Example:
Harold the 6th level Cleric has Brew Potion, Maximize Spell and
Divine Metamagic (Maximize). Can he brew a potion of Cure Serious
Wounds - Maximized, by spending 375 gp, 15 xp, and four turn attempts?

How about 750 gp (as if it were a 6th level spell cast by a 5th level
caster), 30 xp, and four turn attempts?

Could you at least scribe such a scroll? How much would it cost?

--
Donald
15 answers Last reply
More about sudden metamagic divine metamagic activated items
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Donald Tsang <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
    > I was just thinking... if one had the ability to apply metamagic to a
    > spell without increasing its spell level, could one impart that metamagic
    > into a spell item, such as a potion or a scroll?
    >
    > Now, I realize that it's unlikely to work with the Sudden Metamagic
    > series, at least without having the base Metamagic feat as well,
    > but what about Divine Metamagic (from Complete Divine)?
    >
    > If it works, could you "violate" the level limits on items, since the
    > feat specifically says you're not changing the spell slot of the spell?
    >
    > Example:
    > Harold the 6th level Cleric has Brew Potion, Maximize Spell and
    > Divine Metamagic (Maximize). Can he brew a potion of Cure Serious
    > Wounds - Maximized, by spending 375 gp, 15 xp, and four turn attempts?
    >
    > How about 750 gp (as if it were a 6th level spell cast by a 5th level
    > caster), 30 xp, and four turn attempts?
    >
    > Could you at least scribe such a scroll? How much would it cost?

    I would say no to all three, for both thematic and balance reasons.

    This gives a *huge* benefit to divine spellcasters -- they can stock up
    on big mojo items at no additional cost in real terms. They burn off
    four turn attempts they weren't otherwise using that day, in exchange
    for some big benefit later.

    Also, these are impossible items -- a fifth-level caster cannot cast
    sixth-level spells directly.

    Allowing channeling to boost your power *when you use it yourself* can
    be seen as thematically appropriate (calling on your god's power to
    increase the effect of something you're doing *now*, not bottling up for
    later). It's also better balanced -- you're trading something that
    might *matter*, since you may need the channeling later, as opposed to
    something that *won't* matter (if you spend the day brewing a potion, by
    definition you aren't turning undead).


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
    keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
    >Donald Tsang <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
    >> I was just thinking... if one had the ability to apply metamagic to a
    >> spell without increasing its spell level, could one impart that metamagic
    >> into a spell item, such as a potion or a scroll?
    >>
    >> If it works, could you "violate" the level limits on items, since the
    >> feat specifically says you're not changing the spell slot of the spell?
    >>
    >> Harold the 6th level Cleric has Brew Potion, Maximize Spell and
    >> Divine Metamagic (Maximize). Can he brew a potion of Cure Serious
    >> Wounds - Maximized, by spending 375 gp, 15 xp, and four turn attempts?
    >>
    >> How about 750 gp (as if it were a 6th level spell cast by a 5th level
    >> caster), 30 xp, and four turn attempts?
    >>
    >> Could you at least scribe such a scroll? How much would it cost?
    >
    >I would say no to all three, for both thematic and balance reasons.
    >
    >This gives a *huge* benefit to divine spellcasters -- they can stock up
    >on big mojo items at no additional cost in real terms. They burn off
    >four turn attempts they weren't otherwise using that day, in exchange
    >for some big benefit later.
    >
    >Also, these are impossible items -- a fifth-level caster cannot cast
    >sixth-level spells directly.

    Well, it isn't a sixth level spell -- it's a third level spell, with a
    metamagic feat applied. An amusing concept, of course, is having
    Divine Metamagic applied to Heighten Spell... "Oh, it's a 9th level
    (Darkness) effect? I read my scroll of Flare, heightened to 10th
    level..."


    >Allowing channeling to boost your power *when you use it yourself* can
    >be seen as thematically appropriate (calling on your god's power to
    >increase the effect of something you're doing *now*, not bottling up for
    >later). It's also better balanced -- you're trading something that
    >might *matter*, since you may need the channeling later, as opposed to
    >something that *won't* matter (if you spend the day brewing a potion, by
    >definition you aren't turning undead).

    Actually, I was thinking about storing the positive energy into the
    potion, perhaps by using some variation of the Bless Water spell...
    I suppose you'd find the 4 x 25 gp of silver an inadequate additional
    cost? :)

    Besides, the whole idea of scrolls and potions (and wands and staves,
    for that matter) is to "bottle up power you don't need now, and
    save it for use later". And there's nothing that requires a cleric
    to even worship a god...

    Hey, that brings up an interesting issue: would you allow an item
    creation feat that made spell-activation Turn Undead items? How would
    you cost it? What about Greater Turn Undead?

    (Staff of Last Rites. +1 Ghost Touch, Undead Bane / +0 (MW) quarterstaff.
    Disrupt Undead - 1 charge; Turn Undead - 2 charges; Greater Turn
    Undead - 5 charges. Caster Level 8)

    --
    Donald
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Donald Tsang <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
    > Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
    >>Donald Tsang <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
    >>> I was just thinking... if one had the ability to apply metamagic to a
    >>> spell without increasing its spell level, could one impart that metamagic
    >>> into a spell item, such as a potion or a scroll?
    >>>
    >>> If it works, could you "violate" the level limits on items, since the
    >>> feat specifically says you're not changing the spell slot of the spell?
    >>>
    >>> Harold the 6th level Cleric has Brew Potion, Maximize Spell and
    >>> Divine Metamagic (Maximize). Can he brew a potion of Cure Serious
    >>> Wounds - Maximized, by spending 375 gp, 15 xp, and four turn attempts?
    >>>
    >>> How about 750 gp (as if it were a 6th level spell cast by a 5th level
    >>> caster), 30 xp, and four turn attempts?
    >>>
    >>> Could you at least scribe such a scroll? How much would it cost?
    >>
    >>I would say no to all three, for both thematic and balance reasons.
    >>
    >>This gives a *huge* benefit to divine spellcasters -- they can stock up
    >>on big mojo items at no additional cost in real terms. They burn off
    >>four turn attempts they weren't otherwise using that day, in exchange
    >>for some big benefit later.
    >>
    >>Also, these are impossible items -- a fifth-level caster cannot cast
    >>sixth-level spells directly.
    >
    > Well, it isn't a sixth level spell -- it's a third level spell, with a
    > metamagic feat applied.

    Allowing a metamagicked spell to be enchanted as a spell of it's base
    level is unbalancing. The only sane way to handle this, in terms of
    enchanting items, is to base the cost on the spell slot needed to cast
    the spell. In this case, you'd need a sixth-level slot normally, and to
    be of 11th level. That is, it'd be a 3300gp potion, if sixth-level
    spells could be put into potions.

    Divine Metamagic allows you to spend Turn Attempts in place of a
    higher-level spell slot at the time of casting, it cannot reasonably, in
    a balanced fashion, be used to improve enchanted items. If it could,
    you would probably *never* see a non-maximized potion of cure light
    wounds -- (almost) twice the benefit for the same cost? That is,
    *really close* to the benefit of /cure moderate/ for the same cost?
    Even the 'more expensive' option you describe ('modified spell level *
    original caster level') is *still* cheaper (4 * 1 * 50 vs. 2 * 3 * 50).

    Any cleric capable of brewing potions (i.e. every one of them third
    level or higher) could have the necessary feats (unless Divine Metamagic
    has a level prereq, dunno) to do this. All the other cure light potions
    would be Darwined away. This certainly extends to all other potions,
    too -- this would be the most cost effective way to gain the effect.

    > An amusing concept, of course, is having Divine Metamagic applied to
    > Heighten Spell... "Oh, it's a 9th level (Darkness) effect? I read my
    > scroll of Flare, heightened to 10th level..."

    If you can burn, what would it be, *11* turn attempts? in an effort to
    do this, I'd allow you to *cast* such a spell... but you wouldn't have

    >>Allowing channeling to boost your power *when you use it yourself* can
    >>be seen as thematically appropriate (calling on your god's power to
    >>increase the effect of something you're doing *now*, not bottling up for
    >>later). It's also better balanced -- you're trading something that
    >>might *matter*, since you may need the channeling later, as opposed to
    >>something that *won't* matter (if you spend the day brewing a potion, by
    >>definition you aren't turning undead).
    >
    > Actually, I was thinking about storing the positive energy into the
    > potion, perhaps by using some variation of the Bless Water spell...
    > I suppose you'd find the 4 x 25 gp of silver an inadequate additional
    > cost? :)

    /me plays nethack, #dipping potions into holy water happens pretty
    often. However, 100gp would be an inadequate additional cost for what
    is gained, in almost all cases.

    > Besides, the whole idea of scrolls and potions (and wands and staves,
    > for that matter) is to "bottle up power you don't need now, and
    > save it for use later".

    Well, yes, but right now the costs are balanced with that in mind.
    Being able to apply additional 'free' resources for greater effect,
    without other cost, disturbs that balance.

    > And there's nothing that requires a cleric to even worship a god...

    That strikes me as one of the stupider things they said in d20. Even
    so, they still have to draw the power from *somewhere*, even if it's not
    a specific extra-powerful outsider.

    > Hey, that brings up an interesting issue: would you allow an item
    > creation feat that made spell-activation Turn Undead items? How would
    > you cost it? What about Greater Turn Undead?

    I might, though 'spell activation' isn't the right word for turning.
    For that matter, do you mean 'spell completion' or 'spell trigger'?
    They have different requirements for use.

    Either way, they'd only be usable by clerics and paladins who could
    otherwise (eventually, in the case of paladins) turn undead. It's
    basically a 'turning battery', but with a cap on power (unless you put
    it in a staff, as your example below shows).

    Something like this would be *quite* useful IMC, though, since I use a
    more generic 'channel divine power' in place of 'turn undead'; turn
    undead is a power that uses channeling, and not all godsworn characters
    (clerics and paladins, to keep it simple) have this power, even if
    granted by their god.

    For instance, Albry grants Healing, Plant, and Strength domains. A
    character godsworn to Albry has divine channeling and might have divine
    feats associated with the Plant and Strength domains. A talisman of
    healing ('spell trigger' of /lay on hands/) could be useful to this
    character (I use /lay on hands/ as the domain power for the Healing
    domain IMC).

    > (Staff of Last Rites. +1 Ghost Touch, Undead Bane / +0 (MW)
    > quarterstaff. Disrupt Undead - 1 charge; Turn Undead - 2 charges;
    > Greater Turn Undead - 5 charges. Caster Level 8)

    I'd probably cost it as a spell trigger item, though I don't have
    effective spell levels to use for the (Greater) Turn Undead slots.
    Making it spell completion instead has the interesting effect of making
    it dangerous to use if you're not powerful enough in the power of your
    god, though; this appeals to me.


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
    keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
    >Donald Tsang <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
    >> An amusing concept, of course, is having Divine Metamagic applied to
    >> Heighten Spell... "Oh, it's a 9th level (Darkness) effect? I read my
    >> scroll of Flare, heightened to 10th level..."
    >
    >If you can burn, what would it be, *11* turn attempts? in an effort to
    >do this, I'd allow you to *cast* such a spell... but you wouldn't have
    >[enough Turn attempts unless you had a Charisma of 26?]

    Well, Extra Turning, taken a couple of times.


    >> Hey, that brings up an interesting issue: would you allow an item
    >> creation feat that made spell-activation Turn Undead items? How would
    >> you cost it? What about Greater Turn Undead?
    >
    >I might, though 'spell activation' isn't the right word for turning.
    >For that matter, do you mean 'spell completion' or 'spell trigger'?
    >They have different requirements for use.

    Sorry. Wasn't thinking. I meant "spell trigger". And I guess I really
    mean something like "emulate class ability: Turn Undead".


    >Either way, they'd only be usable by clerics and paladins who could
    >otherwise (eventually, in the case of paladins) turn undead.

    Don't forget Use Magic Device.


    >> (Staff of Last Rites. +1 Ghost Touch, Undead Bane / +0 (MW)
    >> quarterstaff. Disrupt Undead - 1 charge; Turn Undead - 2 charges;
    >> Greater Turn Undead - 5 charges. Caster Level 8)
    >
    >I'd probably cost it as a spell trigger item, though I don't have
    >effective spell levels to use for the (Greater) Turn Undead slots.

    Any suggestions? 1st and 5th, perhaps?


    >Making it spell completion instead has the interesting effect of making
    >it dangerous to use if you're not powerful enough in the power of your
    >god, though; this appeals to me.

    Heh, yeah.

    Donald
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Donald Tsang <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
    > Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
    >>Donald Tsang <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
    >>> An amusing concept, of course, is having Divine Metamagic applied to
    >>> Heighten Spell... "Oh, it's a 9th level (Darkness) effect? I read my
    >>> scroll of Flare, heightened to 10th level..."
    >>
    >>If you can burn, what would it be, *11* turn attempts? in an effort to
    >>do this, I'd allow you to *cast* such a spell... but you wouldn't have
    >>[enough Turn attempts unless you had a Charisma of 26?]
    >
    > Well, Extra Turning, taken a couple of times.

    Actually, I think I'd intended to end that with 'the ability to cast a
    tenth-level spell'.

    A lot of divine powers (i.e. cleric and other godsworn special
    abilities) are powered off channeling; Extra Channeling is a very good
    feat for serious godsworn to take.

    "I can turn undead, and lay on hands, and restore ability damage, and
    smite enemies, and align my weapon, and detect evil, and..."
    "How many times per day?"
    "Six!"
    "Each?"
    "No, total."

    >>> Hey, that brings up an interesting issue: would you allow an item
    >>> creation feat that made spell-activation Turn Undead items? How would
    >>> you cost it? What about Greater Turn Undead?
    >>
    >>I might, though 'spell activation' isn't the right word for turning.
    >>For that matter, do you mean 'spell completion' or 'spell trigger'?
    >>They have different requirements for use.
    >
    > Sorry. Wasn't thinking. I meant "spell trigger". And I guess I really
    > mean something like "emulate class ability: Turn Undead".
    >
    >
    >>Either way, they'd only be usable by clerics and paladins who could
    >>otherwise (eventually, in the case of paladins) turn undead.
    >
    > Don't forget Use Magic Device.

    Not too concerned about that one. I've only rarely seen UMD used in
    play. I also don't see someone taking UMD just for this power.

    >>> (Staff of Last Rites. +1 Ghost Touch, Undead Bane / +0 (MW)
    >>> quarterstaff. Disrupt Undead - 1 charge; Turn Undead - 2 charges;
    >>> Greater Turn Undead - 5 charges. Caster Level 8)
    >>
    >>I'd probably cost it as a spell trigger item, though I don't have
    >>effective spell levels to use for the (Greater) Turn Undead slots.
    >
    > Any suggestions? 1st and 5th, perhaps?

    Hrm. Caster level 8th suggests 4th rather than fifth.

    Without putting a *lot* of thought into it, 2nd and 5th (based on the
    number of slots) may be about right.


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
    keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
    >Donald Tsang <tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
    >>>[Device that stores Turn Undeads]
    >>>Either way, they'd only be usable by clerics and paladins who could
    >>>otherwise (eventually, in the case of paladins) turn undead.
    >>
    >> Don't forget Use Magic Device.
    >
    >Not too concerned about that one. I've only rarely seen UMD used in
    >play. I also don't see someone taking UMD just for this power.

    Most of my Rogues, and many of my Bards, have a reasonable level of UMD.
    How about if the campaign uses the optional turning rules found in
    Unearthed Arcana (which does 1d6/level positive energy damage, to
    undead only, in a cone)? I'm sure both Rogues and Bards would love
    wands like that. Evil Bard / Ur-Priests would love the Bolster version,
    as well...


    >>>> (Staff of Last Rites. +1 Ghost Touch, Undead Bane / +0 (MW)
    >>>> quarterstaff. Disrupt Undead - 1 charge; Turn Undead - 2 charges;
    >>>> Greater Turn Undead - 5 charges. Caster Level 8)
    >>>
    >>>I'd probably cost it as a spell trigger item, though I don't have
    >>>effective spell levels to use for the (Greater) Turn Undead slots.
    >>
    >> Any suggestions? 1st and 5th, perhaps?
    >
    >Hrm. Caster level 8th suggests 4th rather than fifth.

    Ah. There is that. 8th was just the minimum for a staff. Considering
    that a 1st level Cleric with the Sun domain has access to Greater
    Turning, and any cleric who takes Acolyte of the Sun can probably use
    it at least twice, maybe 4th isn't too low...


    >Without putting a *lot* of thought into it, 2nd and 5th (based on the
    >number of slots) may be about right.

    Except that Disrupt Undead is a 0th level spell... maybe 1st and 4th
    is reasonable?

    Donald
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Donald Tsang wrote:
    >> And there's nothing that requires a cleric to even worship a god...

    Keith Davies wrote:
    > That strikes me as one of the stupider things they said in d20 ....

    How so? There's plenty of fictional (and pseudo-historical) religions
    with divine magic but no gods. You need godless clerics to model them.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:
    > Donald Tsang wrote:
    >>> And there's nothing that requires a cleric to even worship a god...
    >
    > Keith Davies wrote:
    >> That strikes me as one of the stupider things they said in d20 ....
    >
    > How so? There's plenty of fictional (and pseudo-historical) religions
    > with divine magic but no gods. You need godless clerics to model them.

    It was in context of how they wrote it up initially. They said a cleric
    can worship a god (and be constrained to the domains of that god). *or*
    a cleric can not worship a god, but pick any two domains of the gods of
    the pantheon (loosely -- IIRC if no god in the setting offered a domain
    you couldn't take it). That is, you could worship a god and get power,
    or not worship a specific god and get power.

    I don't have a particular problem with a setting that has no gods but
    still allow divine magic. I didn't like that in a setting that *has*
    gods, *still as the origin of divine power* (as described above) you can
    get the divine powers without any specific commitment.


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
    keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 19:57:20 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
    <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:

    >Donald Tsang wrote:
    >>> And there's nothing that requires a cleric to even worship a god...
    >
    >Keith Davies wrote:
    >> That strikes me as one of the stupider things they said in d20 ....
    >
    >How so? There's plenty of fictional (and pseudo-historical) religions
    >with divine magic but no gods.

    I wouldn't exactly say "plenty". In fact I'm inclined to think they
    are pretty scarce on the ground.
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd wrote:
    >> There's plenty of fictional (and pseudo-historical) religions with
    >> divine magic but no gods.

    David Johnston wrote:
    > I wouldn't exactly say "plenty". In fact I'm inclined to think they
    > are pretty scarce on the ground.

    Not if you count the many fictionalized versions of Buddhism with great
    cosmic power.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Donald Tsang wrote:
    >>>> And there's nothing that requires a cleric to even worship a god...

    Keith Davies wrote:
    >>> That strikes me as one of the stupider things they said in d20 ....

    Bradd wrote:
    >> How so? There's plenty of fictional (and pseudo-historical) religions
    >> with divine magic but no gods. You need godless clerics to model them.

    Keith Davies also wrote:
    > It was in context of how they wrote it up initially. They said a
    > cleric can worship a god (and be constrained to the domains of that
    > god). *or* a cleric can not worship a god, but pick any two domains
    > of the gods of the pantheon (loosely -- IIRC if no god in the setting
    > offered a domain you couldn't take it). That is, you could worship a
    > god and get power, or not worship a specific god and get power.

    Eh? The second part of that is from Deities & Demigods, not from the
    initial version in the Player's Handbook. The PHB version says that you
    can choose a god or not, and if you do, you're limited to that god's
    domains.

    > I don't have a particular problem with a setting that has no gods but
    > still allow divine magic. I didn't like that in a setting that *has*
    > gods, *still as the origin of divine power* (as described above) you
    > can get the divine powers without any specific commitment.

    Eh, so what? There are still many contexts where that makes sense. The
    mortal commits to a philosophy, and the gods who favor that philosophy
    grant him power. Or the power comes from the belief itself, and the gods
    are merely a manifestation of the belief. Or the gods are incarnations
    of natural phenomena, and you can tap into the power regardless of
    whether you worship the god or the phenomena. Or the belief in certain
    philosophies makes one god-like, such that you can grant your own
    spells.

    Finally, it's hard to see how you could faithfully implement a world
    with both Western-style god-channeling miracle workers and Eastern-style
    enlightened spellslingers unless you allow both kinds of divine magic.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 21:08:48 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
    <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:

    >Donald Tsang wrote:
    >>>>> And there's nothing that requires a cleric to even worship a god...
    >
    >Keith Davies wrote:
    >>>> That strikes me as one of the stupider things they said in d20 ....
    >
    >Bradd wrote:
    >>> How so? There's plenty of fictional (and pseudo-historical) religions
    >>> with divine magic but no gods. You need godless clerics to model them.
    >
    >Keith Davies also wrote:
    >> It was in context of how they wrote it up initially. They said a
    >> cleric can worship a god (and be constrained to the domains of that
    >> god). *or* a cleric can not worship a god, but pick any two domains
    >> of the gods of the pantheon (loosely -- IIRC if no god in the setting
    >> offered a domain you couldn't take it). That is, you could worship a
    >> god and get power, or not worship a specific god and get power.
    >
    >Eh? The second part of that is from Deities & Demigods, not from the
    >initial version in the Player's Handbook. The PHB version says that you
    >can choose a god or not, and if you do, you're limited to that god's
    >domains.
    >
    >> I don't have a particular problem with a setting that has no gods but
    >> still allow divine magic. I didn't like that in a setting that *has*
    >> gods, *still as the origin of divine power* (as described above) you
    >> can get the divine powers without any specific commitment.
    >
    >Eh, so what? There are still many contexts where that makes sense. The
    >mortal commits to a philosophy, and the gods who favor that philosophy
    >grant him power. Or the power comes from the belief itself, and the gods
    >are merely a manifestation of the belief. Or the gods are incarnations
    >of natural phenomena, and you can tap into the power regardless of
    >whether you worship the god or the phenomena.

    Wouldn't that just be vanilla magic?
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:58:08 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
    <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:

    >Bradd wrote:
    >>> There's plenty of fictional (and pseudo-historical) religions with
    >>> divine magic but no gods.
    >
    >David Johnston wrote:
    >> I wouldn't exactly say "plenty". In fact I'm inclined to think they
    >> are pretty scarce on the ground.
    >
    >Not if you count the many fictionalized versions of Buddhism with great
    >cosmic power.

    Which I don't, since most Buddhists belong to sects that treat Buddha
    like a god.
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd wrote:
    >> Eh, so what? There are still many contexts where [mixed godly and
    >> philosophical magic] makes sense. The mortal commits to a philosophy,
    >> and the gods who favor that philosophy grant him power. Or the power
    >> comes from the belief itself, and the gods are merely a manifestation
    >> of the belief. Or the gods are incarnations of natural phenomena, and
    >> you can tap into the power regardless of whether you worship the god
    >> or the phenomena.

    David Johnston wrote:
    > Wouldn't that just be vanilla magic?

    No, but I wouldn't expect you to understand.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
    news:423afda0.103386418@news.telusplanet.net...
    > On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:58:08 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
    > <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:
    >
    > >Bradd wrote:
    > >>> There's plenty of fictional (and pseudo-historical) religions with
    > >>> divine magic but no gods.
    > >
    > >David Johnston wrote:
    > >> I wouldn't exactly say "plenty". In fact I'm inclined to think they
    > >> are pretty scarce on the ground.
    > >
    > >Not if you count the many fictionalized versions of Buddhism with great
    > >cosmic power.
    >
    > Which I don't, since most Buddhists belong to sects that treat Buddha
    > like a god.

    What relevance do "most Buddhists" have? He's talking real or fictional
    versions not their relative, real life popularity.
Ask a new question

Read More

Video Games