Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
The problem is that it wasn't just a better mage; it was specifically a better sorcerer. It meant opposition that didn't have sorcerers (as was the case with any barbarian or lower culture) weren't in the running. I don't think that's good game design. The effect would have been less severe (though I still think unbenign; I don't see the primary function of a mage is to augment the hell out of the rest of the players) if sorcery was the only magic system.
|
I think we are pretty much arguing the same point here, but hey, what is that to stop me.
Sorcerers in RQ3 did become dominant, but not totally though - dispel magic works just as well on 20 year duration spells as shorter ones, and Divine casters could easily access 5 or 6 point Dispel Magic spells (I may have the precise spell name wrong - but you get the idea).
But in the end high level sorcerery is not that much fun. All the augmenting and so on a chore - and as a GM you need to specifically go after the sorcerer(s), and design your combats around them (making sure you have enough counter magic cababilities and then peeling away the magical defenses). I rarely had sorcerers in the 90% + range in a bunch of their skills, but even at that level they become the focal point of the game in many ways. Not unsurmountable, but the dominant factor.