Re: Re: sorcery

From: Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_...>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:50:37 +1200

At 14:11 21/06/01 -0700, you wrote:

>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.

But I _didn't_ claim that the extra cost was for extra range and duration, I said the extra cost was:

::Because a sorcerer has a large number of grimoires and single ::spells to learn from whereas a devotee only has three affinities?

What I said about the extra range and duration was this:

::Balanced against the lack of improvisation (which animists
::don't have either) is that sorcery spells have better range
::and duration.

These are two separate issues and you are not doing anybody any favours for blurring them or mislabelling them as strawmen.

> >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...

Given that Knights aren't sorcerers, I'll be interested to know how you treated him.

>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.

Again I disagree. The standard spells in the Abiding Book are those listed in the rules. Additional spells in the Low Orders tend to come from books along the lines of "the Life of St. Whoever" which doesn't sound like a commentary.

--Peter Metcalfe

Powered by hypermail