> >>>Given that a typical order could conceivably have ten (almost
> >>>complete) grimoires and twice as many single spells in addition
> >>>to the basic syllabus (numbers are based on the subjects taught
> >>>at Sog City), presuming that they must restrict themselves to the
> >>>order's grimoires and then complaining about it is rather
> >>>counterproductive.
> Just noticed - this does seem to be you saying that I was
>complaining about it - au contraire, its desirable.
Call me stupid but I assumed that:
::Sorcerers seem to have about as many Grimoires as devotees have ::Affinities, and each Grimoire has as many spells as an affinity ::has feats, [...]
::But they cost twice as much, and you don't get to ::improvise. Anyone want to tell me why?
was indeed a complaint of some sorts. I pointed out that Sorcerers get more grimoires than devotees get affinities and that they do not restrict themselves. By presuming that sorcerers learn no more than three grimoires in a complaint about the cost was what I was referring to.
>Restricting themselves HELPs the sorcerer,
>by letting them concentrate (ineffectively) on a few abilities,
>rather than be all over the place.
"I've found a copy of the Necronomicon but I won't study from it coz it will reduce my abilities..."?
> My point was that I don't expect sorcerers, in practice, to
>be able to do that much wider a variety of things, as I don't see
>gaining more and more Grimoires as a particularly effective tactic.
Sorcerers will still have a larger number of known grimoires than theists have affinities. It is a more effective tactic than you think because most spells are not combat cantrips that are only used against the foe's best ability but range from healing, divination, weather control, travelling, etc. If a sorcerer thinks that his skill in the spell is to little, then he will enhance it via rituals.
> >>Game mechanically, its just not very useful, as such
> >>abilities will be at a starting level and not raise much.
> >Which makes sense to me.
> So these abilities are the sort that we wish to encourage
>(make character slightly more interesting and fun to play), rather
>than discourage (by making them prohibitively expensive)?
I do not believe that sorcerers will be equally proficient in the grimoires known by their orders. What I do expect to happen is that sorcerers will specialize in a particular grimoire other than the standard set, know a couple of other grimoires and several individual spells to a basic level and leave the deep stuff in other grimoires to other people in his order.
> >Once again, how does a devotee get more than three affinities?
> By convincing the narrator, same way as anyone gets anything.
There is nothing in the HW rules for devotees to learn extra affinities to the extent that you suggest (IIRC it was supposedly as easy as an animist picking up a new spirit). There are ways in which devotees can learn more than three affinities but the restrictions placed on them for doing so are more onerous than that for a sorcerer learning from a new grimoire.
> My, TR and ST seem to have done a good job in turning HW, at
>least in the way we think about it, from a freewheeling conceptual
>game to a rigid prescriptive one.
Looking at the keywords, I fail to see this.
> TR and ST talk about normal Heortling practice. Your PCs are
>free to be much cooler than that, just by you allowing them to be so.
>Sure, to come up with more than 3 affinities you need to explain why
>your PC is special.
This only applied during Character startup. What you were said was:
::Its all part of the fun. Animists can keep finding new ::spirits, theists have new aspects and sub-cults to join, and new ::sub-cults. Its all the same.
which is a statement about character _development_. Unless one is playing a game with Ulerian were-hobbits, "convincing the narrator" is hardly a solid argument to say that theists can get any affinity they want.
> >Then how would _you_ balance the advantages of sorcery against
> >its disadvantages if you don't believe that grimoires should
> >be more expensive to learn than affinities?
> Again, you miss the point
I do not miss any point and I have not launched similar barbs at you. I am simply trying to get you to _justify_ your original statement.
>- a large number of Grimoires and
>single spells is NOT an advantage we need to balance.
Given that the sorcerer has no day job, then he will be able to have more potent magical abilities than the equivalent theist.
> >>Remember, you can almost always defend against a magic attack
> >>with your primary magic abilities. So a sorcerer with a whole bunch
> >>if grimoires can attack you any number of ways - but they will always
> >>fail, because their abilities will almost always be lower.
> >But there is far more to sorcery than just being able to attack
> >people with spells.
> Yes.
Well then why on earth imply that all spells in grimoires are useful only for attacking people?
>But the only real reason, in game, to make ability
>levels lower, by increasing cost, is to make it harder to beat people
>in contests.
It is? That assumes that all sorcerers will spread their HPs on developing all their spells to the same level, which seems absurd.
> >Given that animists (fetishes, difficult to learn in a hurry)
> >and theists (authoritarian orders, restrictions on behaviour)
> >also suffer most of these penalties, they aren't real differences
> >that could be imposed on sorcerers to balance them out.
> Thats kind of the point - sorcerers do not have vast
>advantages (indeed, fairly mild ones), and so need no vast
>disadvantages to balance them.
But I pointed out that you had just proposed no _real_ disadvantages. So what _fairly mild_ disadvantage do you think they should get?
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail