Re: [dq-rules] Idiot-Savant Assembly Line Wizardry

["J. K. Hoffman" <ryumaou@sbcglobal.net>]

Steven Wiles wrote:
> Most of William Hough's comments on the "Magic Shop
> situation" I thought were very good ones, and can be
> summarized as follows: don't forget that your Shaper
> isn't operating in a vacuum.

Yep, he made some *great* points and I answered them, more or less, in 
another post.

> This question also got me thinking about the assembly
> line grunts.  Let's assume this guy (or gal) has just
> been hired and trained to cast a spell.  He probably
> has a low MA (10 would be human average, and judging
> by the non-mages in adventuring parties, more like 5).
>  People genetically gifted with high MA's, I feel,
> would either be actively recruited or tend to
> naturally gravitate to become Collegiate Adepts.  In
> feudal societies, becoming a wizard is one of the few
> means of upward mobility.  Anyway, this already put
> our workman at a severe casting disadvantage Base
> Change-wise.  And since he only knows the spell at low
> Rank, he probably has an abyssmal cast chance.  This
> means that said workman is going to be backfiring
> relatively frequently.  So, I would have to add to the
> cost to train this fellow the continuing cost of
> "medical care" for when he and the rest of the staff
> inevitably curses themselves, backfire results on each
> other, etc.  I may be midjudging the magnitude of this
> as a problem, I'd have to really study the magic item
> creation rules again.  But it seems to me another
> legitimate issue.

Ah, our first technical problem.  Now, keep in mind, I'm a sick, twisted 
freak, okay?  What if they were *really* idiot-savants?  Yeah, they had 
really high MA, but they could only learn two or three spells?  So this 
enterprising sweat-shop owner teaches them a couple of useful ones and 
sets them to work.  Fiendish, isn't it?  Now, say they're way out on a 
mountain top where no one can watch how he mistreats them....  Backfires 
aren't as big a problem all of a sudden, are they?  Okay, sure, the guy 
is a bastard, but still, it gets the job done.  After all, Andrew 
Carnegie wasn't a real nice guy either!

> As a final point, some comments regarding an Adept
> training people in the use of only a couple of spells.
>  Whether a GM should allow this depends a lot on his
> interpretation of what it means to belong to a
> College.  Adepts loose all knowledge of spells from
> one College when they learn another, and part of being
> an Adept is a mindset that is very particular to that
> College and mutually contradictory to others. I
> -think- that's stated in the books.  Having that
> mindset is necessary to casting the spells of the
> College.  Any spells.  My interpretation then, is that
> the time necessary to become an Adept involves not
> just learning the spells, like you'd memorize an act
> of Hamlet or something, but also learning to think as
> an Adept, becoming thoroughly indoctrinated to the
> philsophy.  So, in other words, you can't cast spells
> 'til you learn the mindset, and you learn the mindset
> by learning to cast the GK spells.  Thus, my
> interpretation is that learning the General Knowledge
> of a College is an all or nothing proposition.  That's
> purely a GM interpretation, however.

Okay, so they know the Talents, the Ritual for Investment, and, say, the 
Spell of Fire Resistance, or the Spell of Walking Unseen, or the Spell 
of Water Breathing.  That could churn out some pretty useful magic 
stuff.  Imagine one of those coupled with a sword, a shield, or a cloak. 
 Makes for some interesting possibilities, no?

> Gosh, this was a good question!  It really got me
> thinking about what my idea of an Adept and a College
> really is.
>
> Damn.  That was quite a thought provoker.

Thanks!  I'd hoped it might be for other folks, too.  It obviously got 
me going a little!

Thanks again for your thoughts on this,
Jim

--
"What is impossible today may suddenly become possible tomorrow."
- Thomas Merton