> >>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.
Why is it not "a common sorcerer tactic"? AFAIK Gloranthan sorcerers do not have the mindset of confining themselves to the basis syllabus (i.e. their order's sorcery grimoires).
Given that a typical order could conceivably have ten (almost complete) grimoires and twice as many single spells in addition to the basic syllabus (numbers are based on the subjects taught at Sog City), presuming that they must restrict themselves to the order's grimoires and then complaining about it is rather counterproductive.
>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?
Because a sorcerer has a large number of grimoires and single spells to learn from whereas a devotee only has three affinities?
> > >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.
Which is not improvisation by any stretch of the imagination. To use tradition knowledge for the effect, the Animist has to go onto the spirit plane, find the spirit and then integrate and or bind it into a fetish. This is much closer to the sorcerer's ability to create new spells from his known grimoires than the theist's ability to improvise magic at the drop of a hat.
> 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.
So if they are not that big a deal, then what penalty do you think the spells should have instead?
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail