Go
back to previous topic |
Forum Name |
Gameplay | Topic subject | Buoyancy + Drive | Topic
URL | https://forums.carrionfields.com/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=6&topic_id=25589 |
25589, Buoyancy + Drive
Posted by Scrimbul on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Below are helpfiles.
Basically my question is this: For buoyancy to be a hero level spell for muters essentially (42) why doesn't it 100% negate the ability to use drive?
The verb drive implies that a certain large amount of momentum is necessary regardless of size.
For giggles, let's also include pull in this because pull requires leverage that you don't get under buoyancy.
Syntax: cast 'buoyancy' <victim> cast 'mass buoyancy' <victim>
This spell sharply reduces the mass of the victim for a very short instance. The major effect of this is that forceful physical blows may throw them away from their current location. This spell is considerably more effective on flying victims, who are less able to maintain contact with surfaces to slow their movements. Moving under water is exceptionally fatiguing under these circumstances as well, given the difficulty of forcing it out of your way. Skills that require a great deal of momentum will be difficult or impossible for a Buoyant individual, and these skills will also be more effective against such a victim. Buoyant victims will have difficulty finding sufficient leverage behind attacks with weapons.
This spell requires the trust of a victim if it is to be cast without resistance, though it may be forced onto a hostile victim if they cannot resist it.
Mass Buoyancy is always hostile, and attempts to render the victim's entire group buoyant.
DRIVE syntax: drive <direction>
When in combat, it is possible to drive your opponent in a specified direction.
Bard Repertoire Clarifications: http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=23735&mesg_id=23735&page=
|
25593, RE: Buoyancy + Drive
Posted by Daevryn on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
I thought I'd changed buoyancy to affect drive a while ago. I was wrong -- I must never have gotten around to it.
FNCRish. It's not exactly what you were looking for but it's the way I'd thought it should work when the combination first occured to me a while ago.
|
25591, From a CF realism perspective, I agree. ~
Posted by _Magus_ on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
nt
| |