CF: Re: Changes for Lythander / Vulnarbility:confusion

[Gorlin <gorlin@freibier.htu.tuwien.ac.at>]

> > > >     It's possible to be protected and vulnerable to the same attack type,
> > > > which apparently cancels out.  (dam *= 2; dam /= 2;)  That kinda makes
> > > > sense.  But why would Lythander grant his priests protection from confusion
> > > > AND make them vulnerable to confusion?  It not only cancels out, but it
> > > > prevents any other Protection from Confusion magic from working.  This /has/
> > > > to be a mistake, right?  Even if protection is made additive, it just
> > > > doesn't make sense.
> > > 
> > > This HAS to be a problem with the archetype.
> > 

Isn't the vulnerable field in the archetype the "attack" the cursing
spells use? eg: a curse spell cast by a priest of Lythander makes someone
else vulnerable to confusion, which fits sort of ? (curse as the opposite
of the bless spell, not cursed items)

Gorlin


-
[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to crossfire-request@ifi.uio.no]