> >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?
Actually, in the game where we had sorcerers, they had more time to prepare, and better opportunity for ranged magic, since they were closing in ships.
But given the narrative nature of the game, neither range nor duration made any real difference. Ever. Since 1998. With two different Narrators. Even with different versions of the rules. Effectively, most magic is used at some distance, and lasts for a while. That sorcery theoretically expands on these fuzzy numbers is nice, but it in no way compensates for the very real and clear-cut additional cost of improving.
>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.
Actually, our Hrestoli knight was one of the more powerful magicians...
> >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.
Let me try rephrasing: There are many spells in the Abiding Book. I believe to actually use them, you need a commentary, i.e. a grimoire. I don't think for most (if any) sorcerer/wizard, the Abiding Book itself is actually a huge grimoire chock-full of spells.
Of course not all grimoires have anything to do with the Abiding Book (and almost certainly most do not), but I still think many grimoires do.
David Dunham dunham_at_...
Glorantha/HW/RQ page: http://www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html
Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein
Powered by hypermail