Still at work, but some things occurred to me.
-Your design as it stands seems to be syntactically incomplete. You have no way to make a spell that, say, throws a cup at a table. You have the action for throwing, sure- could do it. You can target an object, so you can designate the table as the end target. How do you add the cup to the action of throwing? As it stands, you could go , but that's ambiguous. In fact, given that there's no way to indicate the - connection, I'd read that as 'Move to these two objects.'
Or consider the buff example. would work for an action. The proper subset of and/or could work for a target or a qualifier, but is several different kinds of gibberish. Your language has the classic 'A woman without her man is nothing' problem.
-How do you shield something/someone?
-What fifth state of matter do you have in mind? I know the basic four.
-Using conceptual materials and a scientific toolbox at the same time is like trying to create the Mona Lisa with a calculator and a CNC painting rig. You're eating your cake and having it too. Your system will be a lot more consistent if you choose one, and stick to it- and I'd stick to the more conceptual, mystical side of things, for your own sanity.
-Probability manipulation with a proper list of concepts is really simple- just add to your list. , anybody? ?
-How do you create a fireball? , , or something really funky like ?
-When I went in this direction, I was attempting to create a language of magic for use with runes. Just saying.
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Atom Bomb of Courteous Debate. Get yours.
I've been writing a bit.
-Your design as it stands seems to be syntactically incomplete. You have no way to make a spell that, say, throws a cup at a table. You have the action for throwing, sure- could do it. You can target an object, so you can designate the table as the end target. How do you add the cup to the action of throwing? As it stands, you could go , but that's ambiguous. In fact, given that there's no way to indicate the - connection, I'd read that as 'Move to these two objects.'
Or consider the buff example. would work for an action. The proper subset of and/or could work for a target or a qualifier, but is several different kinds of gibberish. Your language has the classic 'A woman without her man is nothing' problem.
-How do you shield something/someone?
-What fifth state of matter do you have in mind? I know the basic four.
-Using conceptual materials and a scientific toolbox at the same time is like trying to create the Mona Lisa with a calculator and a CNC painting rig. You're eating your cake and having it too. Your system will be a lot more consistent if you choose one, and stick to it- and I'd stick to the more conceptual, mystical side of things, for your own sanity.
-Probability manipulation with a proper list of concepts is really simple- just add to your list. , anybody? ?
-How do you create a fireball? , , or something really funky like ?
-When I went in this direction, I was attempting to create a language of magic for use with runes. Just saying.
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Atom Bomb of Courteous Debate. Get yours.
I've been writing a bit.