Post:Scroll/Sorcery Questions - 05/06/2015 - 18:20 PM

From elanthipedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Re: Scroll/Sorcery Questions · on 05/06/2015 06:20 PM CDT 1407
>>Okay, from what I'm reading in this thread, sorcerous casting IS NOT perceived as bad by the general populace, simply because they don't know enough about it.


If you ask Joe Peasant what they think of Sorcery, 99 out of 100 times they'll say it's bad.

>>Moon mage wants to cast Fire Shard? Sure, why not. They probably don't even know which spells go with which guild, or why it might be bad. As long as it doesn't look scary, they can get back to their baking/shoemaking/whatever.

This however, is true.

>>Furthermore, some guilds support sorcerous casting. Just like some guilds support tearing fissures into other planes or walking all over the Plane of Probability.

Really, only three guilds do (Unless I'm drastically forgetting something?).

Bards - Which is mostly a nod to their prior scroll perks and general jack of all trades role.
Moon Mages - Which have a long tradition of doing potentially stupid things with magic, but they're good at hiding it and keep it behind closed doors. Or at least they'd better.
Necromancers - Durp.

>>the fact that we've never had any in-game collateral damage makes people miss #2.

Oh, we very much have. It's just not collatoral damage caused by players because of policy concerns, consent, and other general CE nightmares we're all better off without. Just ask Taramaine. (Okay, he won't tell you, but trust me on this one).

>>I wonder, is it intended for it to be so easy to justify?

Given all the other things characters apparently justify to themselves? I don't see why not. (See: Mass murdering most humanoid creatures, in particular louts, wound farming, half the games at HE...)

>>Personally, I think it would be nice if it weren't this easy.

We've discussed this since, frankly, people have embraced Sorcery more than I think we were expecting. That's part of the reason most of the changes you've seen have been more on the "Making sorcery have more consequences" side of the equation. We want it to be an option, but not the default.

>>I'd also like to see some kind of actual (mechanically harmless) long-term corruption

We've had a few tentative discussions in this direction, but I think they're more likely to take place after the other two High Sorcery books are out and we start getting some Low Sorcery spells out.

-Raesh

"Ever notice that B.A.'s flavor text swells in direct proportion to how much one of our characters is getting screwed?" - Brian Van Hoose

This message was originally posted in Abilities, Skills and Magic \ Magical Items, by DR-RAESH on the play.net forums.