Re: sorcery

From: David Cake <dave_at_...>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:09:50 +0800

>David Cake:
>
>>Sorcerers seem to have
>>about as many Grimoires as devotees have Affinities, and each
>>Grimoire has as many spells as an affinity has feats, and they are
>>about as useful.
>
>They have access to more grimoires than in their base keyword
>and have no restrictions as to the number of grimoires they
>can learn from.

        Sure, but not that many. I don't expect adding many Grimoires is going to be a common sorcerer tactic, and if it does its not a game balance problem particularly.

        The real issue is not gaining additional Grimoires (indeed the gaining of additional Grimoires is a reasonable counter weight for the inability to improvise new spells). The real issue is quite the opposite - why does increasing your single primary magic ability (presuming thats a Grimoire) cost so much more for sorcerers, when its not significantly more useful?

> >But they cost twice as much, and you don't get to
>>improvise. Anyone want to tell me why?
>
>Balanced against the lack of improvisation (which animists
>don't have either) is that sorcery spells have better range
>and duration.

        Animists do have some - tradition knowledge can be used for a wide variety of spirits, including finding new ones within a story.

        The range and duration just aren't the big deal they were in RQ3 - I suspect the rules are designed to account for a problem from a different game. I was one of the strongest critics of the way extended Duration worked in RQ3, but its just not the same in HW.

        I think sorcery is reasonably balanced, EXCEPT it costs more for roughly equivalent abilities. Sorcerers are screwed long term. Why?

	Cheers
		David

Powered by hypermail