> There are both good in game reasons and game mechanical reasons.
> In game, you probably choose the things you really want at
>the start of play, and concentrate on those.
That does not mean that the sorcerer restricts himself to those grimoires.
>If the primary Grimoires
>of your order (or the ones you started with, if that is different)
>are not what you see as important for your character conception, then
>why did you choose them?
I never said they weren't important, I just merely wondered why you believe that sorcerers (despite all the copious mentions in the rules) normally _restrict_ themselves to those grimoires.
> Game mechanically, its just not very useful, as such
>abilities will be at a starting level and not raise much.
Which makes sense to me.
> And its just not a big deal. In a game when you can just give
>yourself any ability you can name (without even working out what it
>does),
Once again, how does a devotee get more than three affinities?
>>Because a sorcerer has a large number of grimoires and single
>>spells to learn from whereas a devotee only has three
>>affinities?
> Thats not a response that logically follows, its just two
>unrelated facts about it.
Then how would _you_ balance the advantages of sorcery against its disadvantages if you don't believe that grimoires should be more expensive to learn than affinities?
> Remember, you can almost always defend against a magic attack
>with your primary magic abilities. So a sorcerer with a whole bunch
>if grimoires can attack you any number of ways - but they will always
>fail, because their abilities will almost always be lower.
But there is far more to sorcery than just being able to attack people with spells.
> Learning a new Grimoire is completely different to learning
>new feats
I never said they were the same. What I was doing was comparing grimoires to affinities.
>Learning
>a new Grimoire or Affinity is not immediately that useful to an
>experienced character - because its a nice new ability that you will
>always lose with if you use against a regular opponent.
Once again how does a devotee learn a new affinity and keep using his old one? A sorcerer can do this but a devotee can't.
>>So if they are not that big a deal, then what penalty do you
>>think the spells should have instead?
> As for what penalties they should have - oh, stuff like
>requiring talismans, being difficult to learn in a hurry,
>being taught by authoritarian orders, needing rigid emotional
>control - stuff like that.
Given that animists (fetishes, difficult to learn in a hurry) and theists (authoritarian orders, restrictions on behaviour) also suffer most of these penalties, they aren't real differences that could be imposed on sorcerers to balance them out.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail