Re: Re: sorcery

From: David Cake <dave_at_...>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:22:40 +0800

>David Cake
>> >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.

        OK, if what is important to you is exactly who said what, fair enough. I thought we were talking about Hero Wars.


Powered by hypermail