Hmm. I'm getting a distinct feeling that Clay doesn't actually know what he's talking about.
Which is a nice touch. Magic- it works, but no practicioner actually understands how, or at least, no one has a very good picture. Very stupidworld-like, too.
It also means nothing with regard to my pet theory on how to interpret Luckamancy action. If I assume Clay doesn't know enough to provide a coherent model, what do I have to go on?
But I can put my tinfoil hat firmly on and say that there are a few Magicks in Erfworld that may be less than what they appear: what if Luckamancy, Mathamancy and Predictamancy were mostly bunk?
Saladman wrote:Well... huh. I guess luckamancers need some kind of balancing factor to keep them from being the god-kings of Erfworld, but that's a harsh one. I'd like to think Dice is right and they pretty much have to come out ahead on balance just on principle, but that's the gamer in me talking, and Erfworld isn't just a game.
You don't need to be too harsh on balancing a unit's ability to influence rolls. Imagine if say a spell were added to DnD that can add a tiny number to a roll/load the dice a little (or maybe it already is, my knowledge of that is very limited, but loading physical dice for the purpose of just one roll will be a tad inconvenient). Not really any more overpowered than any other spell really.
vintermann wrote:I really like the luckamancy mechanic. It could be implemented in a game quite elegantly: Just roll twice on the jinxed attempt, and keep the high result (or the low, if that's what you aimed for). Next time you roll the result you choose at ANY roll, you substitute the result you didn't use from the jinxed roll.
I'm not sure that this is what Clay means (again, I suspect he don't know much, actually), but it is REALLY, REALLY cool.
The whole point of this is lost if you keep it a secret.