Why, as the profession that can manipulate scrolls, does it cost 0/2 points to train in arcane symbols, while wizards, who cannot manipulate scrolls, get it for 0/1 points? Our costs are also the same as clerics and empaths, who also cannot manipulate scrolls.

While the cost may seem low, it adds up quickly. What is the background for this sorcerer penalty?

~Allereli

>Scroll infusion wasn't in existence when TP cost of skills were decided on. Not that background means much... just look at forget, quake, and illusions.

yep, time to rethink our TPs?

Doug-

how you got a blue name is beyond me, your attempts at "educating" people come across as arrogant.

If you have no real interest in advancing the sorcerer profession, please keep your snarky, pompous comments to yourself.

Thanks,
Vanessa

You're right, Vanessa, in that the humor is lost in text and so you may choose, should you wish, to interpret the humor as 'snarky'. I hope you'll accept my apology for attempting to be humorous in this situation, for it led us astray. I am sorry, Vanessa.

Let's step this up a notch or two and drop the humor. In keeping with NIB tradition, I'll simply report the last result of this discussion was an NIR stating clearly that no profession skill cost changes would be considered.

Does this mean forever and always? No. Does this mean that conditions won't change? No. Does this mean we (as players) shouldn't have a dialog and debate about it? No. Does this mean any player (NIB or otherwise) is not permitted an opinion, pro or con? No. Does this mean any player (NIB, NIR or otherwise) won't change their mind when presented with new thought? No.

Continuing the report in NIB tradition, the reasons presented previously have included those discussed so far. Specifically: Dislike that another profession has cheaper costs for the Arcane Symbols skill, and; Belief that a global magical skill should be considered preeminent domain of one profession by changing the training costs associated with that skill.

Varying feedback provided has been: Each profession has some more expensive and some cheaper skills when compared to each other profession. That's the way the framework has been set up to differentiate between the professions including the game design requirement to make 'trade off' decisions, and; The preeminent domain of the sorcerer with respect to scrolls is established through the sorcerer profession spell list, specifically the Scroll Infusion (714) spell. While that particular ability is tied to the global magical skill Arcane Symbols, it is tied to other global magical skills as well. It is further supplemented as a preeminent domain ability by use of the Phase (704) spell, and the appropriate sorcerer profession application of components like the Odeir'cos rune inscribed on a runestone to test the freshness or ability to infuse a scroll.

Interesting NIB factoid for continuity -- for a time, the Odeir'cos rune inscribed by a sorcerer on a runestone could be used by any profession (with appropriate training) to test the freshness or ability to infuse a scroll. This ability was removed (most probably) to preserve the sorcerer's preeminent domain in scrolls.

Rounding out the report in NIB tradition, a few other reasons have included: Enticing new players to the sorcerer profession by making the profession easier to train in; Allowing offset for the 'penalty' that only the sorcerer profession bears in terms of magical components, and; Granting the sorcerer the ability to train in other skills based on perceived point deficits in profession 'required skills'.

Here, feedback mileage has varied widely. This area dips heavily into player opinion, and all opinions are valid. Rather than imposing a personal opinion, I'll close the NIB report tradition by simply advising that varying opinions were provided prior to the NIR statement that costs wouldn't change, and so I have to believe that those opinions were considered.

Now, as a player (NIB or otherwise) interested in advancing the sorcerer profession, and devoid of any humor or jest at all, I ask the simple question -- is there new thought beyond these topics, or perhaps new angles to any of these topics provided above in summary, that could lead the discussion about how reducing the skill cost of Arcane Symbols does something to advance the sorcerer profession?

I don't mind openly and publicly declaring that as one player among many (NIB, NIR or otherwise) I would not mind one bit being challenged with a new thought that would cause me to change my mind on this matter -- and I hope that would hold true of us all, in all cases.

Doug

>Welcome back Allereli.

Thanks Virilneus.

>Happily, they did finally, after much campaigning and getting some new blood into GM positions, fix the hybrid CS penalty. So, yay for that! And we're finally not the only pure lacking a unique AS buff, and we're finally not the only pure lacking a unique AS based spell. So.. progress, but slow, and much work to be done.

Exactly, the recent changes to the game have demonstrated a big turnaround in how things are done.

Doug, you're still trolling. If you wanted to be helpful, just state that the issue had been addressed in the past. Perhaps I wasn't here when it was. One sentence, that's all.

Just taking the AS skill for instance. Suppose sorcerers were 0/1, as we should be, instead of 0/2. Minor, no harm complaining about it right?

Over 100 levels and 202 ranks that is 0/306 extra MTPS spent, or 612 PTPS, or almost 10 ranks in spells, or 10 ranks in dodging or 510,000 postcap xp. You can look at it like sorcerers get a 510k xp penalty, or that we get a -10 DS modifier for the lost dodge. You can say that wizards get a free 2x db item that doesn't take up an inventory slot. Lots of ways to look at it. I personally think they should make sorcerers 0/1, wizards 0/2, but then lower wizard EMC cost to 0/3 from 0/4 to make up for it. But at the very least sorcerers should move to 0/1 even if wizards also stayed at 0/1.

That isn't even getting into the lore issue, which is so much worse. Fact is, AFAIK, noncrumbly sorcerer lore enhancives are the only lore enhancives ever to be sold off the shelf in unlimited quantities (those human empath only ones might have done lore too, but those were very restricted). Why did sorcerer lore perm enhancives get approved but no other lores? I think that was a tacit admission of the imbalance in sorcerer lore costs. GMs said "Here, we won't fix the root problem, but we'll sell you this bandaid." IF they added a demon TEACH ability (where an active demon acts as lore enhancer) that'd be another bandaid.

>Doug, you're still trolling. If you wanted to be helpful, just state that the issue had been addressed in the past. Perhaps I wasn't here when it was. One sentence, that's all.

I don't read doug's posts so I don't know what he said, but if he said it was addressed before that is a lie. No GM has ever made any attempt to justify the costs existing as they do, other then "that is how they are, we aren't likely to change TP costs" No one has ever engaged the playerbase in open debate as to the purpose of the costs being as they are. I honestly think the position is indefensible, which is probably why no one has bothered to defend it. Mere inertia and scarce coding resources are keeping things as they are. That, and an attitude that giving us a rebate for our overpayment would be an unfair windfall, or something along those lines.

So let us be clear, no GM has ever put forth an argument like "TP costs are balanced, sorcerers are worse in everything because they in exchange get X to balance it out." Some players have tried to put forth various illogical arguments, easily refuted.

>>I don't read doug's posts so I don't know what he said, but if he said it was addressed before that is a lie

I'm not sure why no one else's opinion can possibly matter here, but for whatever reason I'm comforted by the fact that this same mind is the one powering the decisions about so many things in our universe.

>>One sentence, that's all.

Whoo, whoo! Two in a row.

Doug