0beron wrote:*facepalm* Okay Exate I've said it once before...the spells themselves are suggestions that give a general idea of what a school can do. Ultimately it doesn't matter how unbalanced they are, because Kaed isn't really using them anyway. And I for one don't feel like deleting it and essentially wasting the work of whoever wrote it originally. It's nice to have something there to spark the player's ideas and inspire them. If you don't like it, ignore it.
If we aren't using a rule, it should not be in the rules document
. The extension of the "we're keeping them for inspiration" principle is to keep all obsolete and/or terrible rules suggestions on hand for "inspiration"- and that's crap. A rules document needs to be accurate, easily referenced, and as streamlined as possible. As things are written right now, our main rules document- linked from the first post- says that we are
using those rules on magic, and that document says that we are
using those spells. There's not so much as a disclaimer otherwise in either location.
So with all due respect, you can keep your facepalms to yourself. If you want those spells somewhere, make up a "past rules reference" document or something, don't put rotten food in a sandwich and tell us we're supposed to pull out the pastrami before biting down.
0beron wrote:As for which ones are available, I'm totally failing to see your point there. The disciplines that are not available are all ones that we either haven't seen at all in-comic, or ones that are very poorly explained. It would be unrealistic and contrary to the purpose of the game (faithfulness to the comic) to try and extrapolate them based on our own ideas.
While that appears to be the intent, what's actually written is more arbitrary. Findamancy, Mathamancy, Lookamancy, Shockamancy and Rhyme-o-mancy, all have full listings in spite of being hardly featured in the comic- we've seen no action or explanations from casters of those types, and only seen them used in some modified form; scrolls, artifacts, links, natural effects, and so forth. Signamancy and Carnymancy have all gotten at least as much screen time, and Carnymancy even has a significant caster character and multiple spell effects. Weirdomancy and Date-a-mancy have at least gotten mention and a bit of discussion, so it's not like they're less prominent than say Findamancy is.
There's just no consistency. Given that many of the suggested effects (which admittedly are apparently meant to be ignored?) from each school are essentially without basis in the comic, I don't think it can be argued that we're trying to avoid significant extrapolation here. It would be better to either cut it down to what we actually know, or throw it open to what we have even a little knowledge of instead of this mix-and-match of both styles. Given that we're trying to make a functional game system at all out of what is strictly meant as a story with game trappings, the latter option seems far preferable.