Much like 702, they didn't want to overpower the spell due to the added lore modifier for increased damage.

(j/k)

<<As an aside, though the damage is horrible, 1700 can be cast as a bolt spell from offensive.>>

That's what I use today, but for such piddly damage to cause 5 seconds hard RT is often rather dangerous to use as a bolt. 705 bolt would be very useful in conjunction with a bloodburst or two...and more reliable than 702. I guess I just want to understand what the 20 ranks of lore requirement was meant to prevent/preserve.

It just seems excessive since DF-wise its got the exact same power as 904 (minor acid) so I don't understand what would make it need such a high lore input to work. Now if you said you needed 20 ranks of lore to get the extra disintegration benefits on armor, etc with the bolt that would make perfect sense to me.

<<You can still bolt with 102 up, fyi.>>

Just not well enough to make it worthwhile for most older sorcerers...whereas against greater orcs and mongrel hobgoblins bolting would be a godsend at level 7. Especially considering some of the armor the hobgoblins wear.

<<
102 doesn't subtract from bolt offense anymore. It's been like 15 years since it did.>>

Well ain't that a kick in the head...you are right. Bah I have been cheating myself of extra defenses.

Thanks for the tip.

Still doesn't answer if there is a reason for the high lore requirement for bolting...20 ranks to make the spell equivalent to a minor wizard spell a level lower. I just want to know if the lore is an arbitrary setup or if there is a justification for it I don't understand.

I have a hard time imagining that any level 7 sorcerer has enough mana to hunt with a fifth level bolt spell.

Remember that 1700 has a bolt version. That's probably a more viable option.