Re: Re: sorcery

From: Nick Eden <nick_at_...>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 16:48:35 +0100


On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 19:26:20 -0400, you wrote:

>
>
>
>> 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.
>
>Even if that was true, you're assuming that the only purpose of a
>sorceror's magic is direct attacks on opponents.
>
>Having a lot of spells which help different non-combat abilities would be
>very useful in non-combat contests, which will be more common in most HW
>games. In combat, you can gain a lot of abilities to do neat things like
>flying or collapsing walls or opening up pits or creating walls of light or
>...

The only problem with this is that none of the (few) example sorcerous characters we've seen have this kind of flexibility or this many spells. Instead they seem to have about as many spells per grimoire as a theist would have feats from an affinity, with them all being far more specialised.

It is of course dangerous to draw conclusions based on less than half a dozen example characters.



Is Carl Hiaassen shaking his head and saying "If I'd have written this, no-one would have beleived it?"

Powered by hypermail