XP costs for Sorcery

[wordman]

While I don't mind the casting time (it's one of the things that keeps everyone from learning sorcery), I think that if you allow the time to be reduced, you also need to increase the risk of casting.


The worse problem is that, when shaping sorcery, you are basically outside of combat and not able to do much. If that restriction is lifted, I actually wouldn't mind sorcery being slower.

 

[cyl]

If that restriction is lifted, I actually wouldn't mind sorcery being slower.

Well if that was the case, everyonewould learn sorcery !

 

[Ryvaken Tadrya]

Considering the training times and xp cost:
100 xp gets you:


- 10 terrestrial spells and you need 10 weeks to learn them with a teacher/book


- 12 charms + a basic combo excellency + charm, and you need around 7 weeks to get them (considering you buy series of charms with ability mins 3-4).

*looks at the Solar XP costs*


Charms: 8/10 XP depending on ability favored/unfavored.


Spells: 8/10 XP favored/unfavored.


...okay I can think of a few mathematical scenarios where 8 != 8, but since I assume we are functioning in the set of Complex numbers or a subset thereof, I'd have to say that 100XP gets you just as many spells as it does charms.

 

[cyl]

uuuh my bad :roll:


Trouble was the training times !


I dunno why I was stuck with the wrong xp chart...

 

[Ryvaken Tadrya]

Training times I can see being an issue, but so often I see them ignored as a matter of "what the hell do we need these rules for anyway!?" that it rarely comes into play.


Try this: stunt the training. If it is cool, you can do it.

 

[Arthur]

Actually, in practice, 80xp would buy you 10 charms or 1 charm and 9 spells, because you still would have to waste 8xp on the Terrestrial Circle charm.

 

[MrMephistopheles]

I'm getting tired of repeating myself. "Sorcery" may be flexible, but any given spell is generally highly specific. Of course there are exceptions, but do you fundamentally disagree with that?

So.


Charms are also a LOT less thematically flexible than Sorcery. Lets lower charm costs also.

 

[Flagg]

What does "thematically flexible" mean?

 

[Brickwall]

What does "thematically flexible" mean?

Solars have directness, brightness, power. And other Exalts have that same kind of specific types of Charms. Sorcery has everything under the sun. Everyone can get to it.

 

[Flagg]

That's completely irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Feverfew]

Have to agree there. "Thematic flexibleness" rings hollow in light of the fact ALL Abyssals can pick up a charm (Unconquered Hero's Faith) that lets them learn Solar charms, and there's two entire castes that can pick up every charm under the Sun as a perk of their caste. Sure, there's consequences to doing it, but it can be done.


Sorcery's risk/reward is biased more toward risk, which means it's less useful overall. Besides, how many times would you NEED to make a manse out of nothing? I mean, it should be somewhat telling that practically the only spell that gets repeated mention in this thread is the obsidian butterflies one; if that's the only reason people find sorcery/necromancy worthwhile, then it probably needs revision.


@Wordman: I like your ruleset for sorcery, though you're right in saying it's too crunchy in its current incarnation. Personally I'd like to see the risk/reward system changed to something like the rehwah mechanic from The Secret Texts, but it doesn't seem completely in-theme, as neat as it is.

 

[MrMephistopheles]

That's completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Considering it directly involves flexibility, which is the argument against sorcery in this case. Yeah it really does.

Have to agree there. "Thematic flexibleness" rings hollow in light of the fact ALL Abyssals can pick up a charm (Unconquered Hero's Faith) that lets them learn Solar charms, and there's two entire castes that can pick up every charm under the Sun as a perk of their caste. Sure, there's consequences to doing it, but it can be done.

So one exalt type can eventually pick up a charm to spread it's xp out even more, not assist it areas it wont be in the vast majority of the time, doesn't alter the Abyssals charm themes, and has no effect on all other Exalts charm themes makes it ring hollow? Yeah..........I'll just have to go ahead and disagree there.

 

[Flagg]

I give up.

 

[Feverfew]

So one exalt type can eventually pick up a charm to spread it's xp out even more, not assist it areas it wont be in the vast majority of the time, doesn't alter the Abyssals charm themes, and has no effect on all other Exalts charm themes makes it ring hollow? Yeah..........I'll just have to go ahead and disagree there.

And, if house ruled, you can have Solars picking up the mirror charm for that. ;P Which still doesn't answer the fact that there's two castes who can collect non-type Charms. Charms are more flexible than you're admitting in terms of who can acquire them; simply because their type-specific themes are tighter than the discipline-specific themes for sorcery doesn't make them "less flexible".


I see this isn't a debate worth continuing, though.

 

[MrMephistopheles]

And, if house ruled, you can have Solars picking up the mirror charm for that. ;P

Yay for house rules.

Which still doesn't answer the fact that there's two castes who can collect non-type Charms.

Nobody really questioned that,so I have to wonder at your choice of words. It doesn't establish anything more than canon already allows. That MA charms(with their own restrictions) can help an exalt break their Exalt type's thematics, that sorcery can, and that Abyssals to some degree overall and Moonshadow/Eclipses can, with restrictions.


Not one bit of that invalidates that each Exalt type inherently has magical effects that they can or can't do. The core book even touches on this.

Charms are more flexible than you're admitting in terms of who can acquire them; simply because their type-specific themes are tighter than the discipline-specific themes for sorcery doesn't make them "less flexible".

Which applies to Sorcery just as much. And calls into question the desire to dub it so inflexible.

 

[Feverfew]

You were trying to argue that Sorcery is more accessible than Charms, which makes it more flexible and therefore in need of more crunch-side restrictions (like higher XP costs, useless starter charms, etc.). But Charms, while not AS flexible, aren't restricted to one Exalt type only, and--


Meh. We're not arguing from the same set of background assumptions, and as I said, this isn't worth continuing. You can continue to be right in your own mind; I doubt it will change Flagg's on the matter. It stands that while ANYONE can get Sorcery, its APPLICATIONS are too limited to make it worthwhile for most players. It's not a matter of who can get it, it's a matter of what it can do and why it's desirable, which you seem to be overlooking.


And perhaps "house ruled" was wrong. STs can choose whether or not to have it in the games, but it IS in MoEP: Abyssals with enough of a write-up for it to be completely usable--it's not out of nowhere.

 

[MrMephistopheles]

it's a matter of what it can do and why it's desirable, which you seem to be overlooking.

if you think that's true, post a thread on the WW forums saying Demon of the First Circle is too limited of an application and wait. It wont take long.

 

[Feverfew]

it's a matter of what it can do and why it's desirable, which you seem to be overlooking.

if you think that's true, post a thread on the WW forums saying Demon of the First Circle is too limited of an application and wait. It wont take long.

Which is one thing. So is Death of Obsidian Butterflies. If there were only three useful Charms for each type of Exalted, how would you feel about their "utility"?

 

[MrMephistopheles]

Which is one thing. So is Death of Obsidian Butterflies. If there were only three useful Charms for each type of Exalted, how would you feel about their "utility"?

There aren't, just like there aren't three spells. Nice strawman.

 

[Ledaal Kajiri]

You were trying to argue that Sorcery is more accessible than Charms, which makes it more flexible and therefore in need of more crunch-side restrictions (like higher XP costs, useless starter charms, etc.). But Charms, while not AS flexible, aren't restricted to one Exalt type only, and--
Meh. We're not arguing from the same set of background assumptions, and as I said, this isn't worth continuing. You can continue to be right in your own mind; I doubt it will change Flagg's on the matter. It stands that while ANYONE can get Sorcery, its APPLICATIONS are too limited to make it worthwhile for most players. It's not a matter of who can get it, it's a matter of what it can do and why it's desirable, which you seem to be overlooking.


And perhaps "house ruled" was wrong. STs can choose whether or not to have it in the games, but it IS in MoEP: Abyssals with enough of a write-up for it to be completely usable--it's not out of nowhere.

Perhaps. However...Terrestrial Circle Sorcery is available to all Exalts, Gods, Elementals, Demons, Mortals, Godbloods...and Abyssal or Solar charms most certainly are not. ANYONE cannot learn Abyssal or Solar Charms. The majority of beings in Creation can learn Sorcery, if they make the effort. Is it the answer to everything? No. Nor should it be. It has quite a number of useful spells. Many of the most useful being the ones people haven't even mentioned. Incantation of Effective Restoration is highly useful to any Scavenger Lord, for example. The Ritual of Elemental Empowerment can supply mortal troops with a variety of magical gear, and offers some interesting options. Flying Guillotine is frankly usually more useful than Death of Obsidian Butterflies. Unconquerable Self is the ultimate middle finger to the Deathlord seeking to torture and break you...even if it is a one time deal. Invulnerable Skin of Bronze and Vitruous Guardian of Flame can both be used to stack your defenses in one form or another on waking, and can stay up all day...wake up, meditate for an hour or two, and you're set for some time. Demon of the First and Summon Elemental are both highly useful in the hands of a Sorceror who makes a study of the appropriate being for the right situation. If you have a need for expendable cannon fodder cheaply, or for simple servants, Summon the Lesser Minions of the Eyeless Face is potentially useful. Purifying Flame can cure any poison. The Sacred Tongue allows you to communicate with anyone, whatever their native language...however obscure. Sorceror's Irresistible Puppetry can give you access to sleeper agents, or enslave your beaten foes. Any or all of these are as useful as a single charm or more, and each has considerable utility. Many of these examples are as useful or more than charms which require more effort and dedication in the ability normally related to what they do, in return, admittedly generally costing more essence to use. Sorcery is quite handy...so long as you aren't foolish enough to assume it will supply your combat capabilities. If you are, then you aren't looking in the right place. It may have some useful combat spells, if used carefully and cleverly, but that is not its true strength.

 

[Murdrak]

I find that sorcery is a bag of tricks. As a sorcerer in exalted I have to spend a huge amount of xp to get a small bag of tricks. Once I have them I'm waiting around for a reason to use one of them in the story, looking for creative reasons to use them. I can't just pick new tricks, I can't just buy them in game, I wait for the story teller to throw new spells my way. Saying I'm going to go search for a spell book gets me the question of where. They don't sell those in the local village and Nexus is 5 thousand miles away. Almost every session of exalted has a combat in it, and sorcery in combat is lame. This can be argued forever from a rules balance perspective, but for me the test is: Is anybody playing a sorcery focused character in your exalted games and liking it? My experience is that most people try it once and get their characters killed within 6-8 sessions so they can play something else. I wouldn't play a twilight sorcerer at half xp. I might decide to pick up demon of the first and counter magic though. Around 8 years of exalted and about 15-20 different people I've played with and nobody has ever seriously gone sorcery... Maybe its just small sample size. I'd love to hear about groups where everyone wants sorcery and nobody has martial arts charms.

 

[Ledaal Kajiri]

And how often do characters in your games focus on non-combat abilities? Sorcery's real strength is outside the sphere of combat. It's a useful toolkit, but not a battle winner. Then again, so is Craft, or Thaumaturgy, or Larceny, Investigation, Presence, or any number of abilities. If your games are heavilly combat focused, heavy use of sorcery is doubtful to be of huge utility, with the possible exception of a handful of carefully chosen spells. If they have a greater focus on non-combat scenes, Sorcery can be very useful. If they have a balance...well, somewhere in between. The same as many other ability spreads.

 

[Murdrak]

Social-fu hasn't been a real winner either. Presence and Performance had more popularity in first edition counter intuitively. Stealth: popular, Craft:popular, Larceny: popular, Bureaucracy: no, Ride: somewhat, Athletics: popular, Dodge: sure, Social: no, Investigation: popular, Lore: somewhat, Survival: popular, etc. Popularity is driven by usefulness in a typical game and quality of the charms in the tree. I take it that lots of people play sorcery focused characters in your games. I suppose the storyteller can influence anythings usefulness. I don't know how many times I've taken bureaucracy as favored and bought a basic charm for a starting character. I like the idea of having influence over large institutions but then never find a reason to put another xp in it again.

 

[Feverfew]

Which is one thing. So is Death of Obsidian Butterflies. If there were only three useful Charms for each type of Exalted, how would you feel about their "utility"?

There aren't, just like there aren't three spells. Nice strawman.

Exaggeration, not a straw man. :] You missed the point entirely.


Then the question becomes, though, is making sorcery cheaper to acquire going to make people more likely to use it in combat-heavy games?

 

[MrMephistopheles]

Exaggeration, not a straw man. :] You missed the point entirely.

Actually I chose the wrong fallacy. It was a false dichotomy.

Then the question becomes, though, is making sorcery cheaper to acquire going to make people more likely to use it in combat-heavy games?

If you can find the old Thus Spake stuff. The original developer had some words on sorcery and combat.