Forums of the Megaverse®

Would you let an old immortal (500 yr+) trade skills for spells? Ratio? Explain the reasoning.

There should be no need to, as they would have a tremendous array of skills, and possibly spells if they had studied magic.

Caveat on their skills though - you have to bear in mind, their skills may be a bit like the ones Methos had in Highlander. In that he said that he had a huge amount of qualifications it was just that his science degree was from around 1900 and thus hideously out of date. Same goes for a lot of his others qualifications / degrees.

So let's say during WWII he was a spy, refusing to fight in the trenches.

(If you wanted to use other books.....he could be an ancient master or just a master of ninjutsu - or both).

The ability to use a computer and flash drives to optimise trojans etc, knowledge of modern tailing methods, modern infiltration methods, and the knowledge, and the use of, of modern technology to aid in their job. Look at Burn Notice, Covert Affairs, or Person of Interest for examples of these in use.

So while they are extremely knowledgeable, their spy craft compared to that of a modern spy would be woefully inadequate such that they (modern spy) would run circles around him!

So no need to trade skills, at all.

It would be the use of magic that would be the great equaliser to protect against their outdated skill set.

Since my question was about trading some of the " tremendous array of skills" for spells, I thought that would of implied that that char was going to have some spells.

A simple yes or no would of answered the yes or no question I asked nicely. As it stands you should like a senator trying to sound like you are answering the question while avoiding answering it.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Since my question was about trading some of the " tremendous array of skills" for spells, I thought that would of implied that that char was going to have some spells.

A simple yes or no would of answered the yes or no question I asked nicely. As it stands you should like a senator trying to sound like you are answering the question while avoiding answering it.

I did answer your question mate, I just went into more detail than a binary yes or no answer - which is exactly as you requested.

Rogerd wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Since my question was about trading some of the " tremendous array of skills" for spells, I thought that would of implied that that char was going to have some spells.

A simple yes or no would of answered the yes or no question I asked nicely. As it stands you should like a senator trying to sound like you are answering the question while avoiding answering it.

I did answer your question mate, I just went into more detail than a binary yes or no answer - which is exactly as you requested.

There is no place in you post where you say yes or no. Nor do you say 'I would' or 'I wouldn't'. All I see is ""not saying"" those answers. Yes, I read the Whole Thing and nothing you said, directly answered the question posed.

The closest you got to answering the question asked were "There should be no need to, ..." and "So no need to trade skills, at all." I am a bit OCD when it comes to words. So If 'I' didn't see it, it is not there.

So unless you are going to directly answer the question so that everyone can see it...(ie: turn you obfuscation skill off)...don't bother arguing that you did here.

Anyone else have their own ideas on this question?

I have not considered doing this before, so I don't have a considered yes or no. However, if a player came to me with a proposal, I would review it and come to some arrangement. I don't think I have need at present to decide on a system for this ahead of time.
It is an interesting question though, and I am curious to see what others propose.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:The closest you got to answering the question asked were "There should be no need to, ..." and "So no need to trade skills, at all." I am a bit OCD when it comes to words. So If 'I' didn't see it, it is not there.

So unless you are going to directly answer the question so that everyone can see it...(ie: turn you obfuscation skill off)...don't bother arguing that you did here.

I answered your question in full there was absolutely no obfuscation involved mate.
And I gave clear and concise reasoning in my answer.

Rogerd wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:The closest you got to answering the question asked were "There should be no need to, ..." and "So no need to trade skills, at all." I am a bit OCD when it comes to words. So If 'I' didn't see it, it is not there.

So unless you are going to directly answer the question so that everyone can see it...(ie: turn you obfuscation skill off)...don't bother arguing that you did here.

I answered your question in full there was absolutely no obfuscation involved mate.
And I gave clear and concise reasoning in my answer.

You may have giving your reasoning in your OP, but you didn't give an answer asked. *said the OCD person*