From: Graeme A Lindsell (gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au)
Date: Mon 16 Aug 1993 - 19:07:59 EEST
>
> gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) writes:
Wayne writes:
> Well...I'd say SOME kind of patch on sorcery would be a Really Good Idea.
> And the Easy/Medium/Hard thing would be nice. Past that...
>
I'm more interested in a completely re-written sorcery system than a
patch, ie something like Paul's presence system. Your point is well
taken though: if the Companion is meant to provide patches to broken
rules without needing to change the character sheet, then sorcery
is an obvious candidate for fixing.
The Easy/Medium/Hard is interesting, but I don't see it as essential,
and I'm worried about the way it's implemented: almost all of the
cults judge progression by skill level, and cults with Easy cult
skills will suddenly become much easier to advance in.
> >
> > > extension, but under the current rules, it's pretty unlikely that mages
> > > will be travelling around with constant high Intensity, long Duration
> > > spells on them,
> >
> > In fact none of them will if we use the current RQIV sorcery draft,
> > successfully making sorcerers as dull as possible.
> >
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "Dull" in this context. My bitch with the
> current draft is that the ritual Duration/Range extension might as well
> not be there, since the POW based version is still too good, and the time
> based version is useless.
I think both versions are useless: I can't see a sorcerer ever blowing
power to get a temporary spell. This is why I called it dull: the interesting
thing about RQII sorcerers was the long duration spells (OK, the grossly
overpowered thing as well). The draft RQIV sorcerers just seem to have a
different variety of spirit magic. There's nothing unique about them.
>
> I just generally thought it was a mess, personally. While I understand
> some of the problems with the current version, I didn't like a number of
> features about it, including what seemed like some irrational values for
> some weapons, loss of distinction between armor types, and a reduction in
> the already low chance of actually ever killing someone in the game.
Yes, but I think that the low death rate is more due to the new
death at neagtive max HP rule and the prevalence of Heal spells, rather
than the lethality of the weapons. I think Heal is the real culprit:
there are very few wounds that kill you instantly in reality. I think
most combat fatalities are the result of shock.
>
> > I wouldn't stay up late to hear the answers: KR only seemed to float
> > the idea a few days ago.
> >
>
> Which, like I said, I never even saw. I LOVE getting internet stuff
> through a BBS...it's SO much fun...
>
Really? I saw it three times.
> Wayne
>
>
> ------------------------------
> shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow
> The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327
>
Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:47 EEST