Previous Thread
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
My critique of learning magic in 3.0 test so far. It seems there is one spell per skill range, that will teach the relevant magic . There are a few exceptions where another spell can be used.
I don't think the Idea that each skill area has a spell to train that area because it dictates what spell tree you have to take , among some other things . I think it would be better if all spells had some capacity to train. Depending on what you are doing with it and not the spell classification itself.
For me right now , I have to use the following to learn. at around 200-250 ranks.
Warding - CH , note still need to test Lay Ward , MAF.
Target - USOL
Utility - ROC , CF , have to be damaged to learn from CF
Augmentation - Kura-Silma
Debilitation - VS
Thanks for listening.
Haven't done tons and tons of testing, but
>>I think it would be better if all spells had some capacity to train.
Ideally (bugs notwithstanding) all spells do have the capacity to train, they just train different skills. If you are asking for all spells to teach the same couple of magic skills (like in 2.0), then you're going to be disappointed, because that is the exact thing they are trying to move away from in 3.0.
>>Depending on what you are doing with it and not the spell classification itself.
Which skill it trains already depends entirely on "what you do with it," inasmuch as there are only certain things each spell does. Dazzle is a stunner. Stunning is a disabling effect, ergo dazzle teaches disabling and is classified as such. If you want to try to cast dazzle to gain some kind of utility or augmentation or damaging effect... well, you can try, but you won't learn any of those other skills, because no matter how much you WANT the spell pattern to behave differently than designed, it won't.
>>My critique of learning magic in 3.0 test so far. It seems there is one spell per skill range, that will teach the relevant magic.
I can see this being an actual problem, but it seems your problem is with the necro spellbook and not necessarily magic 3.0 in general. You should probably voice those concerns over in the necro folder. Each guild has a different proportion of each type of spells. The AP book has (I believe) at least one trainer for each skill, so if you're unhappy with the spell selections of your guild, you have alternatives to help keep your training going.
>>I think it would be better if all spells had some capacity to train.
Ideally (bugs notwithstanding) all spells do have the capacity to train, they just train different skills. If you are asking for all spells to teach the same couple of magic skills (like in 2.0), then you're going to be disappointed, because that is the exact thing they are trying to move away from in 3.0.
>>Depending on what you are doing with it and not the spell classification itself.
Which skill it trains already depends entirely on "what you do with it," inasmuch as there are only certain things each spell does. Dazzle is a stunner. Stunning is a disabling effect, ergo dazzle teaches disabling and is classified as such. If you want to try to cast dazzle to gain some kind of utility or augmentation or damaging effect... well, you can try, but you won't learn any of those other skills, because no matter how much you WANT the spell pattern to behave differently than designed, it won't.
>>My critique of learning magic in 3.0 test so far. It seems there is one spell per skill range, that will teach the relevant magic.
I can see this being an actual problem, but it seems your problem is with the necro spellbook and not necessarily magic 3.0 in general. You should probably voice those concerns over in the necro folder. Each guild has a different proportion of each type of spells. The AP book has (I believe) at least one trainer for each skill, so if you're unhappy with the spell selections of your guild, you have alternatives to help keep your training going.
Thanks for the response . I only have experience with the Necro/AP spells , so perhaps its best to post in those folders.
My post was in assumption that I knew about the different magic skills , aug , ward, etc. That's why I posted the spells I use for the different skills.
>It seems there is one spell per skill range, that will teach the relevant magic.
So when I said that , I was referring to the "relevant magic" being "Utility" "Warding" , etc.
My post was in assumption that I knew about the different magic skills , aug , ward, etc. That's why I posted the spells I use for the different skills.
>It seems there is one spell per skill range, that will teach the relevant magic.
So when I said that , I was referring to the "relevant magic" being "Utility" "Warding" , etc.
Yeah, right now we're doing some analysis of the training ranges. Posting in the necro forums is a good way to address necro-specific issues.
Looking at my charts, I'm definitely seeing a gap for low-level warding for necros. However, the APs (which will be pretty readily available) will be able to fill some of those gaps as well, if you don't have a spell that you want for that range.
--
"The ninety and nine are with dreams, content but the hope of the world made new, is the hundredth man who is grimly bent on making those dreams come true." -E.A.P.
Looking at my charts, I'm definitely seeing a gap for low-level warding for necros. However, the APs (which will be pretty readily available) will be able to fill some of those gaps as well, if you don't have a spell that you want for that range.
--
"The ninety and nine are with dreams, content but the hope of the world made new, is the hundredth man who is grimly bent on making those dreams come true." -E.A.P.
