Dangerous Magic
to do or not to do
So, couldnt really find anything about this anywhere, and it may be a bit early, since magic wont find it's way here until fall as I understand it.
I've always loved Steven Eriksons take on magic - basically, its dangerous. Very dangerous, and capable of destroying armies at its highest levels, but also very taxing, and dangerous for the wielder. You might end up being consumed if the power you try to control, slip from your fingers.
This I would like to see in the game as well, perhaps as a way over getting more power out in a desperate bid for survival, you could up the power of a particular spell, with the risk of dying, or at the very least suffer a severe setback (loss of abilities for a set period of time for instance).
The spell itself could become stronger, cover a greater area, hold for longer time and so on.
Another thing I love about Eriksons magic is that in some battles, even with mages on both sides, there's practically no magic, and all the fighting is done by soldiers. The reason for this, is that be mages are cancelling each other out, neither side able to do anything because the others will cancel you. It makes for balancing of armies, or even for armies dependant of pure mages , although I doubt occupation should be able to be done without soldiers.
discuss ![]()