>>Consider the example in the rule book: the 'Collapsing Wind' that
>>Kallai has. The narrative implies that Kallai's player never uses
>>that ability until long after character generation. So it would
>>almost certainly have a rating of only 13, which will not collapse
>>anything.
>
> Do people really expect the Narrator characters to follow the rules of
> character generation?
I sure don't, but since this Kallai (not to be confused with any important narrator tribal kings of the same name) was an example character, it's reasonable to expect that new players will model their characters after him.
(Greg and I have had the Sample Resistance discussion for a long time, but the effective loss of Cool and Ambiguous References was a new ramification to me.)
Peter insists on seeing the little picture:
> What I said about the extra range and duration was this:
>
> ::Balanced against the lack of improvisation (which animists
> ::don't have either) is that sorcery spells have better range
> ::and duration.
>
> These are two separate issues and you are not doing anybody
> any favours for blurring them or mislabelling them as strawmen.
The discussion is about the overall power of sorcery, and why it would possibly need to be so costly. Better range and duration are not a significant advantage (unlike improvisation). So theism wins here, as well as winning in cost.
> >Actually, our Hrestoli knight was one of the more powerful magicians...
>
> Given that Knights aren't sorcerers, I'll be interested to know
> how you treated him.
Possibly incorrectly -- I can't find the reference now to how knights have risen through all the castes, but I could have sworn he needed to have been a wizard (as a modern Hrestoli lord does).
David Dunham <mailto:dunham_at_...>
Glorantha/HW/RQ page: <http://www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html>
Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein
Powered by hypermail