Re: Move Through (take 3)

[Steve Ames <steve@ns1.cioe.com>]

> No.  thought triggering requires no hand movements, no channeling of
> magical energies which is where the concentration comes from.  I had a
> thought about multi-tasking the other night.  Playing a wind intrument is
> the most difficult task for the brain to accomplish, using 11% of the
> organ.  However people march and improvise this.  It does not require the
> channeling of forces invisible through human will though.  While a mage
> could easily dictate or demonstrate a spell while running the mile, he
> could hardly cast.

Sure. But could he walk at a whopping 10'/round. That's what we are
questing.

> No again.  Not the same.  Concentrating on a spell is the second round of
> a stone jet, etc.  Yet again no channeling, but mild concentration on the
> parameters of the spell, hence 1/5.  

Hrm... and you believe that this "channeling" is the break point? You
can go toe to toe with an armed killer and make 5 attacks, but not
"channel" and move 10'? Keep in mind that it takes the same amount of
time to do a 'lamp' as a 'fireball'... so both require the same amount
of "channeling". You can use up 11% of your brain, improvise and march
easier than you can channel.... however in AQ terms it takes me 300
eeps to learn to do this all powerful channeling... how many eeps would
it take to learn to play a wind instrument, compose music and dance
(march) at the same time assuming I could use two skills in a round which
I can't.

I see the crux of your argument. It is your belief (unsupported by any
ruleset documentation) on what it actually takes to cast a spell. There's
nothing really to tell us either way so it does kind of come down to ones
personal beliefs on this subject. I believe that casting a spell isn't
that difficult if anyone can chuck out 300 eeps and one week of study and
learn it (more for priests due to indoctrination requirements). You
believe otherwise. As I said, if a consensus cannot be reach allowing it
I'll happily back down on the subject and just bring it up again sometime
in the future.

I would, however, propose that it get written up as I've layed it out
for presentation to GMs and then have a list of questions at the bottom
where everyone could checkmark their feelings on the matter. ie:

							YES	NO
							---	---
Should spell casting be allowed at 1/5 movement?	___	___
Should this be a seperate skill (as opposed to subskill)___	___

etc...

I'll be absolutely delighted to write up this sheet and bring a couple
dozen with me. We just read it over, check a few boxes anonymously
and turn them back in. Discussion and Questions certainly applicable.

> Not using 2 skills in a round is not in the book.  If it is, please
> correct me.

Woa! *gasp* That would kick ass especially since we are now playing
completely by the book. Can anyone refute or support this? I actually
do believe its in there because we were tracking down a rumor that
Augers _could_ use more than one. But I don't remember for sure.

> I read the message just like the first time, lets get it on.

Here's my rebuttal then :)

						-Steve