>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.
Theists usually have an additional job (soldier, sailor etc) whereas sorcerers don't.
>BTW, saying that sorcerers are paying for increased duration is a
>straw man.
No, it isn't. You might consider it to be an inadequate rebuttal but a mischaracteristion of D. Cake's arguement, it most assuredly is not.
>In actual play, I don't think we have *ever* worried about
>magic duration.
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?
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?
If your answer is that you prefer to play mighty-thewed sorcerous characters able to slug it out toe-to-toe with the foe, then what you want is a knight. I know that the rules state that the only way Malkioni can become magically powerful is to become a sorcerer and I do consider this a flaw (which the animists rules also share).
>I think it's very likely that many grimoires are actually
>commentaries on the Abiding Book.
They aren't. Most ancient grimoires were around before the abiding book and atheists do not follow that book.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail