> >At 14:11 21/06/01 -0700, you wrote:
> >>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
It most assuredly is the question. Read what David Dunham wrote before presuming to divine "the question" for anybody else. Hijacking posts to hurriedly type in what you've already said at length elsewhere adds only heat IMHO.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail