True Sorcery...how is it?
- Thread starter Gundark
- Start date
Aus_Snow
First Post
It has several appendices toward the back of the book, three of which exist to adapt True Sorcery to systems other than D&D / standard d20 fantasy: Thieves' World, True20 and Iron Heroes.Gundark said:
The Iron Heroes appendix seems to be mostly about altering the Arcanist class, True Sorcery style. It's only 4 pages (out of 128-odd), but it will apparently make almost the entire book usable for IH.
In general, TS makes for an interesting subsystem. Very modular, which is kind of the point, it would seem. The name of it often suggests simplicity or a streamlined approach to people, apparently, because of the similarity (in name) to True20. It's actually a fair bit more complex than say, D&D magic. At least, in terms of 'just castnig a spell'.
I haven't tried the system as written, but I've pulled bits out of it for my own purposes. It seems like a nice effort along lines often travelled, though. I'm also curious to hear some opinions on it, especially those derived from 'actual play' experiences.
ValhallaGH
Explorer
You may find this thread on the Iron Heroes forums insightful. Very much on topic for your question.
The Arcanist in the IH index is almost identicle to the one found in the IH book; which is fine, there were very few complaints about the class, just about the magic system. The few changes are either to tweak the base TS system to be more per-encounter than the base design or to provide some form of limit and balance to certain class features.
There are a few issues that are unclear in True Sorcery but with some discussion and some thought they can be worked out. A simple subject search for True Sorcery on the IH forums will get you most of the pertinent threads and discussions.
The Arcanist in the IH index is almost identicle to the one found in the IH book; which is fine, there were very few complaints about the class, just about the magic system. The few changes are either to tweak the base TS system to be more per-encounter than the base design or to provide some form of limit and balance to certain class features.
There are a few issues that are unclear in True Sorcery but with some discussion and some thought they can be worked out. A simple subject search for True Sorcery on the IH forums will get you most of the pertinent threads and discussions.
Goddess FallenAngel
Explorer
I'm using it currently in a IH game that I am in... I like the system, and will be using it for my own D&D homebrew, instead of the typical D&D 'fire and forget' system of casting.
I will warn you though, the initial leaning curve is fairly steep. Basically, you have spell 'seeds' and have to manually create the spells you want to cast (which you can do on the fly, BTW - you don't have to memorize ahead of time). Each 'seed' has a 2-3 sample spells listed so you can see how it is done. Once you learn the system, it is incredibly flexible.
I will warn you though, the initial leaning curve is fairly steep. Basically, you have spell 'seeds' and have to manually create the spells you want to cast (which you can do on the fly, BTW - you don't have to memorize ahead of time). Each 'seed' has a 2-3 sample spells listed so you can see how it is done. Once you learn the system, it is incredibly flexible.
jedavis
First Post
I have a pdf copy, and am a serious fan. One problem (even with the most recent update) is that the math for the example spells is often incorrect (some of these errors are corrected in the errata, but a good number remain). Basically, it's safest to ignore the example spells.
Other than that, the primary problem (as mentioned previously) is that it takes some serious mental effort to use. I tend to write my spell effects as functions of range, duration, and other preferences that I set on casting. The one other player in my group who has used it wrote out different effects for different ranges and pre-calculated his spellcraft DCs (used to cast everything; not sure if that was discussed previously).
Also, the system may break down if you allow skill enhancement bonus items using the standard 3.5 pricing and don't place reasonable limits on the max enhancement bonus.
However, it's a great system and a serious change from standard D&D magic. If you liked the Warlock's ability to cast all day, have a standard cleric in the party to heal off your subdual damage from casting, and don't mind some mental exertion, you'll have a high time.
Other than that, the primary problem (as mentioned previously) is that it takes some serious mental effort to use. I tend to write my spell effects as functions of range, duration, and other preferences that I set on casting. The one other player in my group who has used it wrote out different effects for different ranges and pre-calculated his spellcraft DCs (used to cast everything; not sure if that was discussed previously).
Also, the system may break down if you allow skill enhancement bonus items using the standard 3.5 pricing and don't place reasonable limits on the max enhancement bonus.
However, it's a great system and a serious change from standard D&D magic. If you liked the Warlock's ability to cast all day, have a standard cleric in the party to heal off your subdual damage from casting, and don't mind some mental exertion, you'll have a high time.
Nonlethal Force
First Post
I've been recommended to pick up True Sorcery as well and have an additional question.
For reference, I just picked up Elements of Magic revised (as well as the Lyceium supplement) during the server sale. I found EoM to have a steep learning curve but once you get a hang of the system it is really easy to use and quite flexible. For those of you that say True Sorcery takes a fair amount of mental acuity at first, how would its learning curve compared to EoM?
Second ... for those of you with experience with both: Are the systems similar in what they can accomplish? Preferences of one system over the other? Does one tend to produce more powerful results than the other?
For reference, I just picked up Elements of Magic revised (as well as the Lyceium supplement) during the server sale. I found EoM to have a steep learning curve but once you get a hang of the system it is really easy to use and quite flexible. For those of you that say True Sorcery takes a fair amount of mental acuity at first, how would its learning curve compared to EoM?
Second ... for those of you with experience with both: Are the systems similar in what they can accomplish? Preferences of one system over the other? Does one tend to produce more powerful results than the other?
ValhallaGH
Explorer
True Sorcery has a shallower learning curve than EoM, but it always requires more raw math than any of the EoM variants I'm familiar with.
There is a fair amount of overlap between the two systems, but I think that TS has a slight edge for mechanical balance (though not much of one). EoM is a bit easier, once your players learn how to use it.
Both have broken patches that can be really troublesome; Charm magic can be a serious problem in both systems. However, either one can work well.
... My appologies if that wasn't as helpful as it was meant to be.
There is a fair amount of overlap between the two systems, but I think that TS has a slight edge for mechanical balance (though not much of one). EoM is a bit easier, once your players learn how to use it.
Both have broken patches that can be really troublesome; Charm magic can be a serious problem in both systems. However, either one can work well.
... My appologies if that wasn't as helpful as it was meant to be.
Nonlethal Force
First Post
No need to apologize! I appreciate the input, and it told me what I wanted of your opinion between the systems. Thanks!
The part where you say EoM has a steeper learning curve but EoM is a bit easier once they learn it may sound contradictory, but I totally understand. EoM is easy ... once you get it, that is!
The part where you say EoM has a steeper learning curve but EoM is a bit easier once they learn it may sound contradictory, but I totally understand. EoM is easy ... once you get it, that is!
jedavis
First Post
Hmmm... I've read EoM (once, six months or so ago) but I haven't used it. IIRC (bit if, there), EoM had a set SP limit per day, and had multiple classes with different spell-effect lists. Neither is the case in True Sorc. There's only one base class (plus a D20 Modern advanced class, and variants for IH, Thieves' World, and True20), which has access to all the spell effects (talents, as they call them) in the book. Further, the amount of magic you can use in a day depends largely on your Constitution; your Con bonus reduces the amount of subdual damage you take per spell, and the more HP you have (and ergo, the higher your Con bonus), the more subdual you can take before you knock yourself out (hence, gnomes are a favorite for my true sorcs).
Not having played EoM, I can't really compare ease of use or balance. Looks like I didn't quite make it through the apparent learning curve... One thing that True Sorcery does great that I'm not sure EoM supports is swift action spells... it's pretty typical for my sorcs to put out a swift and a standard spell each round. Of course, your swift actions spells are weaker than your standards, but they're still great to have.
Not having played EoM, I can't really compare ease of use or balance. Looks like I didn't quite make it through the apparent learning curve... One thing that True Sorcery does great that I'm not sure EoM supports is swift action spells... it's pretty typical for my sorcs to put out a swift and a standard spell each round. Of course, your swift actions spells are weaker than your standards, but they're still great to have.
