Re: matrix gems

[Steve Ames <steve@virtual-voodoo.com>]

Hrm... attunement... Hrm... gametime means nothing. All it means is
that I convince a GM that a year needs to go buy. Perhaps attunement
should cost eeps?

-Steve

On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 09:01:29AM -0500, Foo wrote:
> No, I think I'm going to go with Wright's plan.  All Matrix Gems require
> time to attune to, so all incants on your person are at +2 ranks.  When
> you use them, they act as if they are +2.
> 
>  -*********************************-
> -  Joel Gunderson                   -         
> -  fooboy@laf.cioe.com              -
> -  The only completely consistent   -
> -  people are the dead.             -
> -              -- Aldous Huxley     -
>  -*********************************-
> 
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Steven E. Ames wrote:
> 
> > Joel, whack me if I'm wrong here....
> > 
> > Your suggesting that matrix gems only come into play when you _USE_ the
> > incant, not when your creating it? i.e. A nomad who uses an incant while
> > holding a nomadic (or chromatic) matrix gem has that incant act as if
> > its two ratings hire than it really is?
> > 
> > That seems more consistent, just not sure how to bundle that up into a
> > magi-physical rationale.
> > 
> > As for Sean's question on creating them... gots to be holding it the
> > whole time. A quick touch is just lame and I doubt any intelligent GM
> > would let that fly. The matrix gem doesn't just bestow power at a
> > touch... its used to distill energy.
> > 
> > -Steve
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Sean L. McLane" <zodo@laf.cioe.com>
> > To: <gmlist@cioe.com>
> > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 12:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: matrix gems
> > 
> > 
> > > <my comments included below...>
> > >
> > > > From fooboy@laf.cioe.com  Mon Feb 28 12:27:16 2000
> > > > Subject: matrix gems
> > > >
> > > > Ok, I'm about to point out an enormous inconsistency in the rules
> > (or at
> > > > least the way people have been interpreting them).
> > > >
> > > > Matrix gems multiply some of the skills/abilities of individual
> > > > backgrounds by 1.5.  IE, a mage has 1.5 times his normal number of
> > spell
> > > > units when holding a matrix gem.  If he drops the gem, his total
> > number of
> > > > spell units goes back to the normal total.  The same holds true
> > across the
> > > > board. For warriors, your combat mod is multiplied by 1.5.  If a
> > warrior
> > > > drops his matrix gem, it goes back to its normal total.  Ditto for
> > augers,
> > > > marines, and priests.   Nomads work a little differently.
> > > >
> > > > Typically, a Nomad holding a Nomadic matrix gem should have all his
> > > > incants increased by two ranks.  However, players have been using
> > nomadic
> > > > matrix gems (be it their own or someone elses) during the creation
> > of an
> > > > incant to add two ranks to the total ranking of the incant on a
> > PERMANENT
> > > > BASIS.  This is flat out wrong.  Once the incantor lets go of the
> > matrix
> > > > gem, the incant should go back to it's normal ranking.  This is
> > exactly
> > > > the way mage/priest/warrior/auger/chromatic matrix gems function.
> > Now,
> > > > correct me if I'm wrong here Dan, but isn't AQ pretty much based on
> > the
> > > > fact that you have to give something to get something?  Expend exp
> > for
> > > > skills, expend exp for magic items, expend exp for spells, and
> > expend exp
> > > > for incants.  The way people have been using the nomadic matrix gems
> > has
> > > > been giving them something for nothing, and it's inconsistent with
> > the way
> > > > the rest of the system works.
> > > >
> > > > Any questions?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Do you think that this should apply only to anyone doing incants in
> > the future,
> > > or should it also be grandfathered to include existing incants that
> > have been
> > > boosted by this method.
> > >
> > > Also, when making an incant with the Matrix gem, does the gem have to
> > be held
> > > through the duration of making the incant, or just touched once at
> > some point
> > > during the making. This would be a significant question for those who
> > are
> > > nomads as a secondary background, not primary.
> > >
> > > -Sean
> > >
> > > > If it's ok with everyone, I would like to announce this at the next
> > gaming
> > > > session to make this official.
> > > >
> > > >  -*********************************-
> > > > -  Joel Gunderson                   -
> > > > -  fooboy@laf.cioe.com              -
> > > > -  The only completely consistent   -
> > > > -  people are the dead.             -
> > > > -              -- Aldous Huxley     -
> > > >  -*********************************-
> > > >
> > >
> >