From: Joerg Baumgartner (rq4@sartar.toppoint.de)
Date: Wed 02 Feb 1994 - 13:11:36 EET
Graeme Lindsell:
> Replying to David Cake replying to Oliver Jovanovic
> One question for those who have the draft: exactly how skill based is it?
> I've heard about the Maintain skill, so there is at least one more
> manipulation, but is it still one spell = one skill?
Good question. To continue it: do related spells have to be paid for full?
I.e. a does character who knows form/set bronze, form/set and animate wood
have to spend the same amount of time to learn animate bronze as Joe
newcomer?
> The reason I ask is that in RQ3 it was significantly harder to become
> a sorcerer than the other magicians. You basically had to design a sorcerer
> from day one, whilst you could become a priest or runelord (or to a
> lesser extent a shaman) during play. The basic problem was the need to learn
> a _lot_ of skills: if you wanted to be able to cast them without 20
> minutes of Cereony then it was even harder, as you have to learn a lot of
> skills and then train them to a high level. The advantage to trying to do
> this was that a powerful sorcerer was the most effective magician, at least
> on the mundane plane.
My only attempt at running a sorcery-user myself under RQ3 (I'm cursed
to be the eternal GM) was a soldier (5 years)/apprentice sorcerer (5
years) who proved to be quite successful and effective, but a long way
from abusively so. More powerful spells just took a lot of time to be
cast reliably. So what?
The real problem was that two point spells and 8 point spells (my free
INT then, having neither familiar nor bound INT spirits) had exactly
the same difficulty, and took the same amount of extra time for
ceremony.
Casting time is more than a small problem for spell-slingers in stress
situations, and works effectively as a limit to overly powerful spells.
By making long-lasting spells need *large* amounts of time which fellow
characters use for training etc. gives an incentive to sorcery-users to
abstain from abusing this option. I'd say a month-long spell warrants
at least one day in preparation, a year-long spell a week, etc.
> Now most of the advantages of being a sorcerer (very long duration and
> range spells) have gone, but it has been made more difficult to become
> at all effective, since manipulation is based on skill (a change I applaud
> BTW). If the number of skills that need to be learned hasn't been reduced,
> or the sorcery spells made more effective than those in the RQ draft 1.0,
> then I can see no reason for players to want to become sorcerers, and I
> doubt sorcery would last as a technique against Divine and Spirit magic.
Range in fact never was a problem on the powerful side. The basic range
of piddly 10 metres made most combat uses of sorcery dependant on the
Range skill. To reach approx. spirit spell range, one had to spend 2 to
3 extra MP per try, which severely hampers the POW 14 character.
>> Sorcery is potentially soul-destroying - but so are divine and spirit magic,
>> they just won't admit it. Just ask the Malkioni -'No, sorcery is the only
> Especially DI's: they can destroy souls faster than any Tap spell or
> vampire.
I always liked C.J. Cherryh's quote for Ischade in Thieves World where
she accuses Molin Torchholder: "You think you are better than us just
because you sell your soul in one piece, while we sell ours piecemeal?"
I think this is how sorcery works, if not properly guided by a greater
>>> Sorcery in Glorantha does not consist of sorcerers,
> Well if they aren't made significantly more effective, either by having
If coupled with some knowledge of the target condition (in your example
And it would be what I expected from RQ3 sorcery way back when I bought
>> Sorry, but this is one thing about RQ4/AIG that I just hate - the
force - on Glorantha either the Invsible God, or Eastern philosophy.
Just like Illumination has its dark side, this self-reliant magic has
its dark sides, such as God Learnerish or Arkat-like behaviour.
>>> even master sorcerers, that can maintain dozens of small spells, or
>>> easily cast spells at great ranges, and the mechanics intentionally
>>> reflect this.
> better spells or less skills (say the skill Tap to tap any stat, or Enhance
> to replace the various Enhance (Characteristic) spells), then I doubt that
> there would be any Sorcery in Glorantha.
characteristic) only. (Although the fairly common Tap INT would be
coupled to the extremely uncomon Increase INT). This works better for
the <substance>, <species> or <sense> variations of certain spells.
it.
>> desire to completely remove the extended range/duration as a viable option.
>> (and I am sorry, but permanent POW for very dull and difficult 1-use effects
>> is not a viable option)
> Total agreement here!
Limited agreement from my side. I repeat myself, but for Mostali the
If the POW expenditure is kept, the sorcerer certainly ought to become
stabilize spells are perfectly valid, e.g. because they get an
automatic annual POW increase for behaving as part of the machine (by
casting their stabilize spell). This could work for human sorcerers as
well.
trained in spending and *regaining* POW, as would anyone making
enchantments. So: *If* by spending POW there is a near certainty of
regaining POW within reasonable time (e.g. one Gloranthan season) in
addition to normal POW gain, these rules make more than sense to me.
Only this would make long-lasting spells a bit more attractive, again,
and the original problem still hangs on. The above proposed option of
seriously increased casting time might limit that, though.
-- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de 0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:33:35 EEST