>At 05:10 22/06/01 +0800, you wrote:
>
>> >Theists usually have an additional job (soldier, sailor etc) whereas
>> >sorcerers don't.
>
>> They don't pay you in HPs.
>
>So a theistic warrior just lets his close combat go to rot
>while he improves his affinities?
No, he gets better value for them.
> > >So your sorcerers did not plan for encounters beforehand
>> >instead of being forced to cast most of their spells in the
>> >heat of the moment?
>
>> Which actually means your augments are at an even lower value
>>than anyone else? Thus being an even more inefficient tactic?
>
>Why?
Because if you do all your augments well ahead of time, you have an extra penalty. So they are even lower in value than normal augments. Yes, the sorcerers duration penalty is lower, but its still a penalty.
> >And remember, everyone else can cast their magics in the
>>preceding half an hour for a mighty +1 penalty, a penalty nicely
>>counteracted by the 1 point higher their ability will be after a
>>single session of play.
>
>So every ability a hero has increases in 1 point per session?
No, but if both the sorcerer and his hypothetical opponent choose to increase their primary magic abilities, the hypothetical opponent will swiftly outpace him, probably gaining a 1 point advantage after one or two sessions. Given, say, 4HP a season as typical (changing the number of HPs per sessions will change the number of sessions it takes for a particular advantage, but obviously not change the relative rates of advancement).
> > >And what about magic _range_ which I also pointed out? Did
>> >your sorcerers not bother about taken advantage of distance
>> >and prefer to cast their magic standing a few feet from their
>> >foe?
>
>> So, how well exactly does attacking people at range work when
>>their ability level is higher than yours? Poorly.
>
>Who said their ability level was higher than yours?
Because the sorcerers ability is low, and the opponents is not.
> What makes
>you think the sorcerer is going to be casting his poorest spell
>against a target with a fantastic defense against that spell?
No, the sorcerer will be casting his best spell against someone who can probably defend using their best magic ability (given that justify your magic affinity or whatever as your appropriate defense is clearly encouraged by the rules). Their magic ability will be higher than his, because his costs nearly twice as much.
> > And just how exciting is a game of middle distance pot shots,
>>and how likely is it that any narrator will let this happen again and
>>again? If you don't get to do it much, its no advantage.
>
>So how do you play archers then?
I don't spend time comparing the relative ranges of different types of ranged combat, and let my players carefully secret the appropriate range band of most contests.
The sorcerers do not have an advantage in all ranged combat, only at particular distances - and in play, you don't take account of distance much.
>
>> We aren't playing skirmish warfare here, its a narrative
>>based game. 'And then, luckily, we saw the enemy at a reasonable
>>distance with a clear line of site, and where able to attack them
>>with spells while they were out of range'.
>
>And since it is possible to use Archers in a narrative based
>game (hw-rules debates passim), one should use wizards at a
>distance likewise, no?
In a narrative based game, you distinguish between ranged and unranged combat often - but not very often between particular range bands.
>
> > (and, of course, as its only a +5 advantage in most cases, it
>>becomes completely pointless by the time you get to the w2 level, and
>>you lag at least 5 points behind the theists)
>
>You do?
Yep. That is, after all, what its all about, relative rates of increase - if the theists (or animists) have put enough HPs into their skill to get to the w2 level, and the sorcerer has done the same thing (ie chosen to ignore the allure of all those additional grimoires to maximise their ability), the sorcerer will be 5 points behind. Say, both are magic specialists, and in the same playing group. Say both start at 5w in their best ability. The theist has spent 45 HPs to get to the w2 level. The sorcerer has spent the same 45 HPs, and has increased only 9 points, so is only 14w.
This situation changes to the sorcerers favour from this scenario only if the theist magic specialist choose not to spend as many points on his affinity, even though its better value (he can improvise feats, and buying a feat costs less than buying a spell - an advantage that becomes more important as the ability gets to a higher level), and he has less options for magical improvement, so is more likely to concentrate on them.
Cheers David
Powered by hypermail