<<Magic resistance will no longer negatively impact Inner Fire. All that particular feature was accomplishing was creating angst on all sides of the situation.

I am pretty sure most will not agree with this BUT...I think this choice is just wrong in so many ways, the whole reason we have MR is because our IF allows it, to not take a hit to IF for resisting a spell makes zero sense to me, it is kind of like, rewriting what Barbarians are, how we work in the world and why.

<<the whole reason we have MR is because our IF allows it, to not take a hit to IF for resisting a spell makes zero sense to me

The reason we have MR is because mana hates inner fire as much as inner fire hates mana. They avoid each other as they are able.
Xixist

<<If you think the IF hit should stay .. why do you feel that way?

I think that the thing to do would be to cap the amount of IF that can be lost due to a single cast. The fact that a Mental Blast or Lightning Bolt that completely beats my BMR can knock me down from "a brilliant aura of pristine quality burning outward at twice your height." to "a brilliant aura of beautiful flames extending nearly twice your height above your body." doesn't really bother me, but three or four casts of Earth Sense completely wiping it out is really kind of excessive.

Maybe capping the loss at 1 or 1.5 message levels of reduction would work - by message levels I mean the different messages on http://phiiskeep.homestead.com/InnerFire.html, I'm assuming those messages are ranges like encumbrance/weapon appraisal/etc and that "a brilliant aura of flames that extends over your height again above you." could be something like 65-70.

---

******************
SEND[Lirrak] I've got permaconsent on you and Im gonna find you now
******************

I think IF hits should continue. I like the mechanics, i just think how much taken away should really be looked at. Before any changes you've done, you could sit in a room for a while getting casted on, and come out with (WHILE HUNTING AND GAINING FIRE) days with zero inner fire.

______________________________________________
You throw your juggling pins precisely at Captain Tevel's chest, hitting it with a decent strike that explodes the chest in a shower of blood and splintered ribs.
[Roundtime 1 sec.]
The Captain Tevel is already very dead.

I gotta say I was thinking about suggesting the removal of IF hits myself.

MR issues aside, it simply doesn't make sense to me that a mage selecting the right spell can tank a Barbarian's IF. Like Ssra said, this doesn't happen with any other pool and it is largely a one-way street because Barbarians could never damage mana pools.

If anyone is interested in coding a Barb ability to make it a two-way street (IF damages mana, mana damages IF) then I'd be for the return of IF hits. Otherwise I think it should just stay out.
*******
Because it's a gigantic can of worms. Eldritch, necrotic, squamous worms, writhing in a vile stew of coagulating ichor, crushed from the living gullets of a thousand infant puppies, ululating in wordless terror.

> The only problem I have with the removal of IF hits permanently is that barbs will be having their friends buff them magically before/during combat. This just seems... wrong to me for a guild so against the use of magic.


There are other ways to approach penalties for allowing magic to be placed on them besides hitting IF. Believe me, this aspect occurred to me, but in the end two factors outweigh it in my mind -- it causes a lot of problems and friction with other players, and as Ssra said, it makes IF the only special ability source that can be reduced by others, which is grossly unfair to barbarians.

While it's possible that we may restore IF hits once we have a chance to redo MR, I'd honestly prefer we look at other ways to discourage barbarians from using magic. The IF hits were, for the most part, a lose-lose situation for both the barbarians and everyone else around them. If we do put them back in, it'll be once we have the numbers in a range where we can make them more reasonable. Some of the hits that were being taken were extreme, to say the least.


- GM Dartenian

"So he buckled right in with a trace of a grin
On his face. If he worried, he hid it.
He started to sing as he tackled that thing
That couldn't be done and he did it."
- Edgar Guest

<<You can work with us to find solutions or you can knock us. If I had been fully aware of the significant IF hit before now, it will have been taken care of long ago. Two players brought it to my attention this weekend and this is the result. It doesn't matter how you cut it -- we're moving forward, not backward.

All I can say here is, wow... It was my POV, an opinion, nothing more nothing less...just, wow.

<<I would not want to see the removal of IF hits to be a reason for a reduction in the strength of BMR. If the choice is weaker BMR or no IF hits, I would choose IF hits.>>

Right now we're thinking about some form of passive "barrier" ability (like a barrier spell, but natural ability) granted to all NMUs. As this barrier is attacked it becomes weaker and weaker. Eventually it will be gone and will take time to regenerate. Barbarians will be bonused by their IF level. We can then augment the "anti-mage" roars with an additional bonus layer. I'd like to hear feedback on thIS approach. We're not sure if it's feasible at this time.

In regard to the overall potency of BMR. At high levels it's impossible to overcome BMR. At low levels it's a real lemon. It just doesn't scale well at all. I can't promise it will won't take a nerf, especially at high levels, but I give you my word I want it to be a useful ability and something that is the envy of all other guilds.

<<I don't think that the removal of IF hits for beneficial spells cast on a Barbarian would be a good thing. IF hits for those spells should remain, and should be significant IMO.>>

I am concerned, as previously stated, that another player dictates to you what your IF level will be. One cast of Earth Meld can completely take away a Barbarians IF (as things stand currently). That is a concern. Even capping the IF drain would not address snap casts, multiple area effects going off at once, etc.

<<Other IF hits for area spells and such should at a minimum be reduced to a small amount. The amount can be lowered so that the natural regeneration of IF will make it a truly temporary effect.>>

That may be one route to take. Regeneration of IF will vary widely based on the circumstance. A Barbarian in a tournament won't regenerate IF from being in combat. A Barbarian slaying invasion creatures will regain IF.

<<The IF hit does serve to let a barbarian know when their BMR has been overwhelmed, and to alert them to spellcasting that they were subject to. Whether a barbarian should be completely unaware of spells or acutely aware of his/her self being affected by spells is a judgment call, I personally think the latter is better.>>

OK.

<<There are situations in which a barbarian may need to have a spell buff cast on them, but they are few and far between and the IF hit shouldn't be eliminated because of those situations. Times I can recall were occasionally during a war and once or twice on a quest.>>

I agree. It's a "have your cake and eat it too" type thing. If you want a strong MR then expect significant drawbacks and little access to the magic system. I'm just not convinced that hitting IF should be the drawback.

-Ssra

"Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind."

<<A compromise that would be satisfying (for me) would be to remove the IF hits for AoE beneficial spells. Annoying a barbarian with zephyr just seems silly. Direct target beneficial spells and all harmful spells should still cause some IF hits. Drastic enough to keep a barbarian from having a friend magically buff them but not the ridiculous amounts we used to see. It should also not be able to lower a barbarian's IF below a certain value. Say half.>>

I think that is a pretty good compromise. I still want to have consent on someone that casts anything on me. :)

>Barb IF and booster spells

I want to know if this was really a problem? I posted about 6 months ago where I cast my full line-up of boosting spells on a barb and he still have the max IF possible after the test. Furthermore the barb I rolled in plat would constantly ask the paladins he was hunting with to cast courage, not once did he suffer a hit and the duration was always the same as the paladin's duration.

I have no experience with barbs and negative spell IF hits, so I won't comment on that, but seriously, barbs weren't taking IF hits for booster spells (at least ranger ones and courage) before this change, so I don't see what the big deal is.

~Hanryu Ves'Shomis
Sword of House Calibanor, Ambassador of the Ilithi Court, Emerald Knight, Keeper of the CEC, ... still a Ranger
http://www.kynevon.info/CombatEquipmentCompendium.xls

anti mage roars should affect the mage.. its not an anti mage battle cry. we dont' roar to boost ourselves, our dances and berserks should do that to our barrier. roaring should affect the mage negatively just like stunning them, immobolizing them, making them drop their weapon, etc.

>>Right now we're thinking about some form of passive "barrier" ability (like a barrier spell, but natural ability) granted to all NMUs. As this barrier is attacked it becomes weaker and weaker.<<

This is an interesting approach. A couple of questions come to mind (just about how you're conceptualizing it, not whether these will be the final specifics).

Do you imagine that all MUs will have the same MR, and BMR will just be a linear shift up from that depending on IF level?

What kind of MR will spell contests be callibrated to deal with? Or will they be fair contests that assume no MR?

- Mazrian

Not prepared to talk about MUs at this time. The Barbarian folder isn't the proper place for "magic user" discussion. If we plan on making any change it will be posted in one of the magic forums.

-Ssra

"Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind."

<<Do you imagine that all NMUs will have the same MR, and BMR will just be a linear shift up from that depending on IF level?>>

Yes, a base MR for all NMUs. Not sure it would be a linear shift for Barbarians. Linear functions tend to get out of hand. It would be a shift up based on IF level.

<<What kind of MR will spell contests be callibrated to deal with? Or will they be fair contests that assume no MR?>>

There will be no calibration. It's against the flow of mana in its entirety. NMU MR won't care what type of spell it is. It will try to stop it.

Just to clarify ... my use of the word "barrier" was only to provide you an understandable example. It will not literally be a barrier spell.

-Ssra

"Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind."

> I don't really like the idea of BMR somehow being "depleted."


Here's the issue: How do you make base magic resistance (for the other NMUs and non-magical critters) effective enough to be worth having, while still allowing room for BMR to be significantly better but not unbeatable?

That's one of the primary reasons the current system doesn't work very well. Magic gets in an arm's race with BMR, leaving base MR completely worthless. In addition, current BMR can and does hit a point of full immunity, first with benefical spells and eventually attacks as well.

One of the most straightforward ways to do this is to make it so as MR takes a beating, it goes down. This lets us get away with making MR more effective because there's a way to whittle it down to manageable levels, but that requires the mage to invest time and power to do so. In the end it becomes a question of which runs out first; the mana or the resistance.

Active bonuses to MR through roars, dances, or zerks also let us get away with a lot higher MR since they would be temporary. We can do things with short-term active boosts that we simply can't with passive ones. As far as anti-mage things go, sure, we can do that, but you've seen how well they work, and there's this thing called "global caps" that have to be applied to debuffs. We really can't make the anti-mage roars much more effective than they already are, as they already go about as far as they are allowed to go. MR itself already totally blasts through global caps when it comes to reducing the TM skill, which will be changing soon.

In a nutshell, right now base MR is worthless. Low level BMR isn't a whole lot better. On the opposite extreme, BMR goes way too far. What we need is something that is beneficial for all NMUs, but still makes BMR enviable without making barb resistance into full-time immunity; temporary immunity is another story altogether.

We are certainly very open to suggestions, but do keep those goals in mind: base MR needs to be worth having for all NMUs, it needs to be worth having at all levels, and it cannot become (or even come close to, really) full time immunity. We also need to remember that there are global caps and how much we are allowed buff/debuff ourselves and others.


- GM Dartenian

"So he buckled right in with a trace of a grin
On his face. If he worried, he hid it.
He started to sing as he tackled that thing
That couldn't be done and he did it."
- Edgar Guest

...although if spells were more likely to just be weakened by MR than repelled entirely that solution would be decent I guess.

Dart,

So, here are a couple of concerns coming from a different perspective. Perhaps these concerns will be addressed at a later stage of the conversation.

1) There are cases where a target isn't standing still long enough for a mage to sling multiple spells at it - for example, in PvP or in invasions. So in at least a sizable minority of magic-MR interactions, the restriction that justifies stronger MR is not relevant since the engagement is over in the first exchange (PvP), the target can run away (PvP), or someone else has killed the target (invasion).

2) Every harmful spell has to pass a fair check after MR is done with it.

3) The situation that made MR necessary no longer exists. MR was designed into the system when part of contested spell defense was PM skill. NMUs couldn't easily train TM (Traders, Thieves) or couldn't train it at all (Barbs). MR comphensated for that. It got carried through the system but seems redundant now. It might be worth reconsidering the concept entirely.



- Mazrian

I personally this is just me feel BMR should be an ability not a constant factor. If it is added to all zerks and some higher dances and scale with the dances it would be better IMO. SO they'd have base MR that scales and then BMR that is applied while dancing or zerking and not all the time when just sitting aroun doing nothing.


"So like I said, don't take it personally. All cultures have their share of fools. It's just that we always felt yours had a lot more than ours."
~~Warrior Mage Guild Leader Senfrislor, The Prydaen in Their Own Words~~

<<MR itself already totally blasts through global caps when it comes to reducing the TM skill, which will be changing soon.

I don't quite understand why MR/BMR would be treated as a "debuff" for purposes of global caps. I see MR/BMR as a base ability that grows with the player, not a boost or "debuff" that is applied against another player.

Aren't evasion, shield, parry, and armor skill as applied to physical attacks the theoretical equivalent of MR with regard to magical attacks?

Are evasion, shield, and parry treated as "debuffs" to weapon skill for purposes of global caps? Or armor treated as a "debuff" to damage for purposes of applying a global cap?

You could also turn the view of BMR as a "debuff" to TM the other way and say that TM should be subject to global caps for the amount by which it can "debuff" BMR.

I'm not arguing that BMR should be immunity, that's not my position. I don't think that applying a global cap to the interplay between TM and BMR fits though. If there will be a change so that the TM spell effect can be resisted as well then a limit to the reduction of TM by BMR would be sensible, however, at least IMO.

~Bractos

I guess having a 65th barbarian doesn't speak either.. or a 86th moonmage :( I'm not really bais to any guild specifically becuase i'd benifit in some way from most things. It was a suggestion to make it more balance for NMU and barbs without being insanely scaled.


"So like I said, don't take it personally. All cultures have their share of fools. It's just that we always felt yours had a lot more than ours."
~~Warrior Mage Guild Leader Senfrislor, The Prydaen in Their Own Words~~