From: David Cake (davidc@cs.uwa.oz.au)
Date: Sat 29 Jan 1994 - 14:35:56 EET
>
> People are upset because when a sorcerer wants to do anything impressive,
> he (or she) has to cast permanent POW points (i.e. if they want to use the
> old Range and Duration tables, etc.).
Yep. I have always loathed these rules (and so do lots of other people, I
recall from discussion when they initially appeared.).
The basic problem is that it is too harsh - like one use rune-magic,
people will only use it when either they are in real big trouble, or when
they expect to get a permanent/ long term advantage from it. In other words,
to beginning PCs you might as well say - 'don't bother doing these things
unless you will die'. In fact, for powerful PCs I suspect that they will not
bother either - 'hmm, another two months worth of Damage resistance, or a
bound POW spirit - not much of a choice'.
In fact the system is a lot like one-use rune magic, except less
interesting and dramatic. I strongly suggest to those involved with the
design that they consider why people want a chance to regain one use magic so
much.
There are at least two (IMHO) better solutions that I can think of.
The very nice Paul Reilly Spirit Vessel system is one nice solution, the
only real disadvantage is that it involves a significant addition to the
rules, and the general sorcery metaphysics. But I like it a lot.
The other really simple solution is Lorens - no regaining of MPs until
the spell duration lapses. This means that sorcerers can maintain
semi-permanent spells, but not very many - even if the spells are maintained
purely from POW spirits (making them somewhat vulnerable) then 2 POW per
binding enchantment is a fair amount. This is better than the 'Pay 1 POW'
for logarithmic table system, under which no one in their right mind maintains
any spells at all, unless they are incredibly skilled and can make a spell
last years. Lorens system also has the advantage of fixing the Extension
divine magic - not a pressing problem, but I would still really like to see
fixed. It does not 'fix' having really long range spells easily available, but
I was not aware that it needed fixing. I liked the fact that some really
powerful sorcerers could cast spells across the continent, dammit! (especially
as you need 200% or so to do it). I never found Range to be the slightest
cause for worry.
> extract from one POW poin t. They tend to derive a permanent benefit from
> each point spent, not merely to improve one temporary spell's effect, once.
> So...
>
Exactly. The great sorcerers of Glorantha are efectively spending their POW
less usefully than initiates buying 1-use rune magic (and I have heard
complaints from some GMs that no one ever buys 1-use rune magic with the
intention of spending it, only to qualify as priest). If you want to restrict
the long term duration/range this much, why not just write it out of the
rules, rather than cripple it?
> Why not keep track of how many points of POW a sorcerer has "spent" on each
> of his (or her) advanced manipulations? This would be the maximum number of
> spells that could be manipulated in the "+1 POW" way at any one time. You
> could introduce a simple mechanism (weeks? rolls?) for "recovering the use
> of" the POW spent in these pools. Character sheets for sorcerers would
> start to tell you a lot about what they do: a Dying Moon assassin with
> "Ease [3 POW]" on his (or her) sheet is different from a Dying Moon
> necromancer with "Duration [3 POW]" and the same mix of spells. One could
> Animate the Dead quickly and cheaply, the other for a longer period of
> time.
>
This system is OK. Works a little like Paul Reillys Spirit Vessell system.
I don't mind it at all. I vastly prefer it to the current system, which
definately rates the lowest of all the sorcery 'fixes' I have seen.
> It would look a little like Divine Magic on the character sheet, and work
> perhaps (wrt recovery, "casting", etc.) in a similar way. With regard to
> Duration, *obviously* the same rules would apply as for Extension -- you
> can't "re-use" a Duration POW point while the original spell is still in
> use. So the Paul & Mike system's very attractive picture of ploughs rusting
> and thatch blowing away when the village Wizard goes to war (as he "drops"
> his old high-Duration magic to cast some new spells on the enhanced table)
> would still be preserved.
>
Sounds reasonable, in fact I think that if you put in the duration extension
fix, you do not need to restrict the duration/range log tables any more.
> I'll keep thinking about this, but would appreciate feedback if anyone can
> see applications or disadvantages I've not noticed.
>
Your system lacks flexibilty next to Pauls, but that is not necessarily bad.
I think Paul and I like sorcerers to be pretty tough, and the general feeling
that we do not share is that they are too tough alreafy, even without
maintaining several long duration spells. So your system may be an excellent
compromise - there are real tough sorcers, but only in certain limited
ways.
> BTW, I agree *completely* with calls for a more interesting Duration table
> (expressed in round days/weeks/seasons, "until sunset/sunrise", etc.). The
> present mathematical table is nasty and unmemorable.
>
Lets just present them as alternatives for people who prefer the different
tables. this is what Champions does, for example.
> ====
> Nick
> ====
>
Cheers
Dave
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:32:49 EEST