One very clever rules-mechanic for sorcery is the fact that by making the value of directly affecting living targets a 3, the sorcery rules prevent from the get-go any spell fast enough to use directly on a living target in melee combat. Moreover, it also means that the exact same spell -- theoretically requiring the exact same amount of energy -- has the potential to age you an extra three months simply by changing the target from yourself to another person. This, to me, seems excessive.

What would be the effects of removing the Target variable completely from sorcery spell CTNs?

Removing it entirely? It'd mean lower CTNs, for one thing. It would also either remove some of the neccessity for creative thinking (see the other current sorcery thread); alternatively, it could open up new ideas that may have been neglected before due to CTN expense.

That's a pretty bland way of looking at it, but it's the first thing I saw.

Jake

Casting a spell on yourself still requires T3, you're still the target and you're (presumably) human.

What it does reduce is the Range component - frem 2 (sight) or 1 (touch) to 0 (self).

[edit] Oops.. should have checked before I typed. Actually, you're right and I'm wrong. Still, what I said above is how it *should* work, IMO :-)

Brian.

Hello,

I am wondering whether people are reading the sorcery chapter closely enough to understand the "embedding" rules. A spell may be cast and simply ... sit there, and it goes off when you say it goes off. Your own body may be used as the holder.

So make up a real honker of a nasty combat spell and embed it in your sword, or in your chest. It goes off under specified conditions (in my game, a reflect-damage spell did so when the sorcerer was hit) or when you say so (on your action).

No waiting. Splattered attacker. Sorcerer supreme.

My experience with the sorcery rules leads me to think that the basic CTN-calculation and its associated casting-time are for spells of desperation, and not for one's bevy of starting spells at all, which would be much more highly ritualized (reduced CTN) and take hours to cast.

Best,
Ron

While I confess I don't see the immediate relation to Stephen's question in your post, Ron, I do have to agree with you emphatically and nod my head a whole heapin' lot.

Jake

Jake,

The connection is that Stephen was concerned about casting time - the ability to get a spell exploding into a person's brain before he separates your mandible from your maxilla with his weapon. My solution removes that casting-time constraint without needing to futz with the rules.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Jake,

The connection is that Stephen was concerned about casting time - the ability to get a spell exploding into a person's brain before he separates your mandible from your maxilla with his weapon. My solution removes that casting-time constraint without needing to futz with the rules.

Best,
Ron

Hey Jake,

Because of all the sorcery questions flying around, I went back and have a quick re-read through the sorcery chapter.

Question:

Is there an easy to describe (i.e. can you knock it off in a few sentences) way to differentiate between a spell that needs to be maintained and a spell that is instantaneous but the effects are permanent?

e.g: If I use growth on a bug to make it huge (spell of one, growth 2 say), do I need to maintain that, or have I changed it's molecular structure and it's permanently large now.

What about if I implant a memory into someone's head with conquor (or remove one).

What about when I reshape my swords edge to make it sharper

You get the idea I'm sure, there are a lot of fringe examples I could come up with. Is there a simple answer (I can't see one in the book) or is the answer just "Seneschals fiat". A guideline would be nice.

Brian.

Brian-
You still have the "old" version of magic, right?

Generally, I'd say that anything that changes something's structure in a sort-of-natural way is permanent. Thus many uses of shape (such as a sharpened sword) are permanent (but the sword could get dull, whereas if made officially permanent, it would never dull). On the other hand, things like shrinking and the like I would require be made permanent.

Make sense?

Jake

Hmm. OK. Yeah, I get it. Kind of :-)

Natural isn't necessarily a good word though, because disintegrating a door is anyhting but natural, but would of course not require permanency.

OK, so in my example, the spell that grows or shrinks a bug must be maintained or made permanent, otherwise the bug returns to normal size. OK, that's easy enough. It also means that my "grow the meat x10 to feed the hungry masses" spell is only going to make them feel full until the spell wears off (true permanency is expensive in terms of losing SP permanently, and I can't make something constant or maintain it for ever, so eventually it's going to shrink again and they'll get hungry).

Hey - is that right? In the revised rules does it still cost permanent SP to make a spell truly permanent? And you have to use the Imprison vagary which ups the CTN on top of that? That's what it is/was in the old rules anyway :-) I must grab that revised chapter 6 PDF again at some point.

What about my mind spell example? If I use conquer to change your memory of an event or remove your memory etc, will your mind sort itself out in time (i.e. do I have to maintain/constant it) or is the change permanent?

It's a bit of a muddy line, it seems. Luckily, my TROS players aren't the argumentative type, but I can see some seneschals having problems... :-)

Brian.

Ron Edwards wrote: I am wondering whether people are reading the sorcery chapter closely enough to understand the "embedding" rules. A spell may be cast and simply ... sit there, and it goes off when you say it goes off. Your own body may be used as the holder.

BrianL wrote:
Cast it into an arrowhead, and specify that the spell will go off when the tip is embedded in something. When the spell goes off, the arrowtip increases in size one hundred times (just for a fraction of a second, this is not a constant or maintained spell).

Brian.