I think that is the intention. The impression i get of the game is that regaining HP and WP during an adventure is supposed to be difficult, so freely choosing the amount of HP converted to WP would make that too easy.Re: Power from the Body, is there any reason for the current system of rolling a die and changing that many points from HP to WP? Why not just say you can directly use HP to power spells? Is it to add an element of risk because the randomness might knock you down to 0 HP whereas presumably you would never do that if you had control?
This is a great point. Power From The Body for some reason says “if you reach 0 from the damage it happens after the spell is cast.”My mage(animism) pointed out the relationship between power from body (page 58) and healing spells are heavily favored towards healing.
You pay d4 hit-points to gain 2d6 hit points worth of healing (treat wounds: page 64).
Now i don't think you are allowed to heal yourself with treat wounds as he plans to do (this should be clearly stated, as its common from other games that you can heal-yourself).
But the point still stands if you have two spell-casters in the group, they basically have an endless supply of healing, especially if you don't run with magic mishaps.
Also is power from body allowed with stone shield(page 66)? Also seems a very obvious and overpowered combo.
I believe it would be better to write it like this: "Iron has an anti-magical effect, which means that you cannot use magic while in direct contact with iron or steel, even if you're not touching it but carrying it or if it's a part of your equipment or carried weapons, except for tiny items."
I actually agree with your player, saying your wizard is powerless because they are using an iron buckle to hold up their pants is silly and smart players are just going to ask the local smith to make bronze armor and weapons for them. Aside from that what are the dark and evil necromancers of the world using to sacrifice their victims? Sharp sticks? I will be house ruling this out for my own table.I believe that the Iron and Magic paragraph (p. 58) could be better explained. One of my players is arguing with me that the text only talks about "direct contact", so if he wears a layer of fabric or leather underneath, he could wear metal armor. Or, if he uses a leather gauntlet, he can use a normal weapon. I believe it would be better to write it like this: "Iron has an anti-magical effect, which means that you cannot use magic while in direct contact with iron or steel, or if you are carrying or wearing any iron or steel equipment, including weapons and armor, except for tiny items."
I’m just assuming they can’t simultaneously have a weapon in hand, or at the ready, and also cast spells. Not wear metal armor.I actually agree with your player, saying your wizard is powerless because they are using an iron buckle to hold up their pants is silly and smart players are just going to ask the local smith to make bronze armor and weapons for them. Aside from that what are the dark and evil necromancers of the world using to sacrifice their victims? Sharp sticks? I will be house ruling this out for my own table.I believe that the Iron and Magic paragraph (p. 58) could be better explained. One of my players is arguing with me that the text only talks about "direct contact", so if he wears a layer of fabric or leather underneath, he could wear metal armor. Or, if he uses a leather gauntlet, he can use a normal weapon. I believe it would be better to write it like this: "Iron has an anti-magical effect, which means that you cannot use magic while in direct contact with iron or steel, or if you are carrying or wearing any iron or steel equipment, including weapons and armor, except for tiny items."
Direct translation it should be thunderbolt (SWE: Åskvigg)Thunderstroke (p.65) - thunderstroke is the noise, but the wording of the spell description indicates this should be called 'lightning stroke'. (Maybe a translation issue?)