>At 17:09 21/06/01 +0800, you wrote:
>
>> >>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.
There are both good in game reasons and game mechanical reasons. In game, you probably choose the things you really want atthe start of play, and concentrate on those. 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?
Game mechanically, its just not very useful, as such abilities will be at a starting level and not raise much.
Sure, it will happen sometimes. But it will happen about as much as, say, changing aspects. It will happen, but not every character and not often.
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), new Grimoires are not a big deal.
>
>>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?
Thats not a response that logically follows, its just two unrelated facts about it.
Its amounts to - they have the option of having large number of abilities, thus giving themselves skill dilution and reducing the average value of their abilities, but we can make this problem worse by making all their abilities lower in value anyway. Having given them the option of inefficiency in their character, we punish them by enforcing inefficiency. Fantastic.
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.
Learning a new Grimoire is completely different to learning new feats - a new feat or spell starts at your current ability, so to an experienced character its a big bonus to get a new feat. 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.
> > 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?
The important point is their ability rating should be much the same as the equivalent abilities for other worlds, otherwise sorcery becomes, long term, a fascinating way of repeatedly losing contests (kinda like mysticism). Range and duration are not such a big deal as to make up for the lower ability level.
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.
Cheers David
Powered by hypermail