Re: sorcery

From: David Dunham <david_at_...>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 08:41:34 -0700


Peter

> 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?

In general, having lots of different abilities (or in this case, grimoires and spells) is handy. But it's often not nearly as useful as having a couple of powerful abilities. As a blatant example, we do a fair amount of heroquesting in our games, and you can't survive just on diversity. (Sorcerers might not heroquest the same way, but the principle of wanting a high ability rating should still be true.)

I haven't weighed in on sorcery before, because we're not actually using it, but it's always felt odd that it's that much more expensive. I could see it costing slightly more than divine magic, but I'd have to agree with Nick: the current rules make it very expensive to be a powerful sorcerer, compared to a powerful theist.

BTW, saying that sorcerers are paying for increased duration is a straw man. In actual play, I don't think we have *ever* worried about magic duration. Just as Conan or Gunnar don't have to worry about what weapon is at hand, fictional mages don't worry about the precise time their spell runs out. (Unless it's dramatically important: "Let's get out of here before the spell wears off," but Hero Wars is already fine for handling dramatic situations, and doesn't need to know that a spell lasts 5 minutes vs 4 minutes.)

Jeff

> Actually, if the Abiding Book and a few others are any example,
> Grimoires have far _more_ spells than any self-respecting Affinity
> would have.

I think it's very likely that many grimoires are actually commentaries on the Abiding Book. Yes, in one sense the spells are in the Abiding Book, but without the grimoire, you wouldn't be able to use them.

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