>Peter insists on seeing the little picture:
If the big picture has to be sustained by belittlement and/or misrepresentation, than I have to wonder whether the picture quality is all that great.
> > These are two separate issues and you are not doing anybody
> > any favours for blurring them or mislabelling them as strawmen.
>The discussion is about the overall power of sorcery, and why it
>would possibly need to be so costly.
Wrong. The discussion was twofold. One was the cost of the grimoires while the other was the lack of improvisation for sorcery spells. I simply adumbrated the extra range and duration of the spells as a trade-off for the lack of improvisation. I do not believe and have never said that the grimoires are so costly because of the extra range or duration.
>Better range and duration are
>not a significant advantage (unlike improvisation).
Wonderful. If only you had said so in the first place.
One could make sorcery spells more potent by introducing reasoning that they also have an "intensify" ability. This could be handled by the sorcerer using his grimoire rating to add edges or augments to his spells within that grimoire.
> > Given that Knights aren't sorcerers, I'll be interested to know
> > how you treated him.
>Possibly incorrectly -- I can't find the reference now to how knights
>have risen through all the castes, but I could have sworn he needed
>to have been a wizard (as a modern Hrestoli lord does).
There's a difference between needing to be a member of the Wizard Caste and being a Wizard/Sorcerer. IMO Knights traditionally combine the submissive (liturgist) approach to God rather than the wizardly Master of the Cosmos approach.
That Loskalmi Lords are wizards and do have spells is IMO a modern innovation.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail