Re: Re: sorcery

From: David Cake <dave_at_...>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:53:18 +0800

>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 exactly you thought was balanced against what is hardly the question - they are unbalanced as a whole. There is not need to 'balance' a range of grimoires - as far as play balanced goes, its self limiting to have a large number of grimoires.

	The large penalty is pointless, and just makes sorcerers a joke.

Powered by hypermail