Quoting GFireflyE, reply 110
Quoting Wintercross, reply 109
I feel the same about this! I liked building my Sovereign into a powerful combat sorcerer and use them to spearhead my attacks.
Heroes usually become city governors for me apart from one or two who either lead a secondary force or join my sovereign in questing.
How about this as an option: Give the player the ability to have the sovereign leave his tower, but at the cost of losing the spells he can cast in any tactical combat. His tower is a 'focal' point of sorts.
However....why would anyone then want to remove him and lose that much flexibility?
I would prefer this. Age of Wonders worked like that. If you're Wizard lord was in a tower it expanded their casting zone, if not they make a powerful combat unit but can only cast where they are.
I can get behind an approach like that.
If by this you mean I can only cast sovereign tactical spells in the combat he is in? Then sure! To cast spells into any combat, I should be in my tower right? Sounds good. However, only do this if ALL the best tactical spells are only available if the sovereign is present in the battle. There has to be a point to making the sovereign leave the tower, and it's not just to possible swing their cool sword or staff for null-effect.
Basically, this would differentiate from casters vs commander types vs melee types and so on. Lets use some elemental examples:
From Tower: Shadowbolt,no-range burning hands, flame dart with the usual 3 round cooldown etc
If Sovereign is present: Manablast, Kill (reduced mana cost), fireball, Horrific Wail
To be honest, keep the sovereign as it is. Tactical spells only if they are there, strategic spells all the time. This makes the most sense, adds an immense amount of flavour (your wizard has to be at least visible on the horizon to lightning bolt someone), and allows for more reply value (the commander type sits n tower, vs the adventurer type)