Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
I like having the choice of immobilizing or stunning... and I really like how stun foe works for me. Thanks. I am ok with soul hits for first strikes... bout the only time I see myself gettin a first strike now and it not being warranted is when I am certain someone is comin for blood. Fact is... understanding someone's nature and propensity for violence just can't be tracked by a system when it comes to knowing that to defend yourself from them means striking first.
Unless you consider the profile open flag.
Could also try to suggest making banner of truce castable on other characters and see how that goes.
I don't see how hard it is to cast banner of truce if you train PM enough or move to a different room and cast it - all in the effort of supposedly quelling a situation for the duration of the banner of truce.
- Simon
I don't see how hard it is to cast banner of truce if you train PM enough or move to a different room and cast it - all in the effort of supposedly quelling a situation for the duration of the banner of truce.
- Simon
I can understand disliking the BoT option simply because of how AoE spells like that and MR work right now. It's not BoT's fault (it's a fairly solid spell) but rather how the mechanics themselves work.
Making it single-person castable would be nice. Wrap someone in a hateful little banner of pacifism.
Rev. Reene
You also see a broad-capped glass toadstool with white spots labeled "1UP".
Making it single-person castable would be nice. Wrap someone in a hateful little banner of pacifism.
Rev. Reene
You also see a broad-capped glass toadstool with white spots labeled "1UP".
I get what you guys are saying, I just think it's rather pooptacular that a actual Paladin guild spell can be better utilized by non-Paladins. =/
~Arwinia
http://www.llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target262.html
~Arwinia
http://www.llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target262.html
>>I get what you guys are saying, I just think it's rather pooptacular that a actual Paladin guild spell can be better utilized by non-Paladins. =/
The only way it can be "better utilized" by non-paladins is if they happen to have more magical skill than the paladin you are comparing them against. It isn't designed to be better or worse in the hands of any particular guild.
GM Oolan Jeel
"The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice."
- Richard Moore
The only way it can be "better utilized" by non-paladins is if they happen to have more magical skill than the paladin you are comparing them against. It isn't designed to be better or worse in the hands of any particular guild.
GM Oolan Jeel
"The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice."
- Richard Moore
>>I get what you guys are saying, I just think it's rather pooptacular that a actual Paladin guild spell can be better utilized by non-Paladins. =/
Curious. Do you feel the same way about the Aggressive Stance spell?
-Armifer
"In our days truth is taken to result from the effacing of the living man behind the mathematical structures that think themselves out in him, rather than he be thinking them." - Emmanuel Levinas
Curious. Do you feel the same way about the Aggressive Stance spell?
-Armifer
"In our days truth is taken to result from the effacing of the living man behind the mathematical structures that think themselves out in him, rather than he be thinking them." - Emmanuel Levinas
>I get what you guys are saying, I just think it's rather pooptacular that a actual Paladin guild spell can be better utilized by non-Paladins. =/<
It's.. utilized just the same. They can get the same success at max negative soul as they could at max positive. They get the same success at the same ranks and stats as if another guild had cast it. If the durations were the same and we assumed no arcane penalties, it's exactly the same as if a Paladin cast the Necromancer 'Petrifying Visions' spell. They'd take a soul hit (the same one), and they'd get the same duration a Necromancer could.
This statement is just like saying 'I think it's crappy a Cleric spell can be used better by non-Clerics' because non-Clerics could use it to murder in holy ground without a hit. Sure it's technically true but as long as guild behavior systems exist it'll always be true that a non-guild member that can perform that specific action it will always 'do it better' than a guild member if only because they don't incur the penalty.
I'm not sure if I'm communicating poorly here or not.. is it just you think the Paladin soul system is bad? That would certainly be fair to express, plenty of people have.
-Z
It's.. utilized just the same. They can get the same success at max negative soul as they could at max positive. They get the same success at the same ranks and stats as if another guild had cast it. If the durations were the same and we assumed no arcane penalties, it's exactly the same as if a Paladin cast the Necromancer 'Petrifying Visions' spell. They'd take a soul hit (the same one), and they'd get the same duration a Necromancer could.
This statement is just like saying 'I think it's crappy a Cleric spell can be used better by non-Clerics' because non-Clerics could use it to murder in holy ground without a hit. Sure it's technically true but as long as guild behavior systems exist it'll always be true that a non-guild member that can perform that specific action it will always 'do it better' than a guild member if only because they don't incur the penalty.
I'm not sure if I'm communicating poorly here or not.. is it just you think the Paladin soul system is bad? That would certainly be fair to express, plenty of people have.
-Z
>>Curious. Do you feel the same way about the Aggressive Stance spell?
To be honest I haven't played with the spell yet =/ I can't really tell you how it works or really much of what it does to formulate an opinion.
>>This statement is just like saying 'I think it's crappy a Cleric spell can be used better by non-Clerics' because non-Clerics could use it to murder in holy ground without a hit. Sure it's technically true but as long as guild behavior systems exist it'll always be true that a non-guild member that can perform that specific action it will always 'do it better' than a guild member if only because they don't incur the penalty.
No, perhaps I'm looking at it differently. It would be like if a "combat" spell was released for the empath guild specifically but it had the unfortunate side effect of causing a mild shock effect when cast. This spell is also available on a scroll so non empaths that don't have to deal with the shock system can cast it without any of the negatives that were specifically coded with the spell (in halt's case the soul system.
I don't think halt is a bad spell, I do think it should be Paladin only if it has a negative drawback that applies to the guild it's designed for that any other guild can avoid when casting.
It's 2 am and I'm tired so if I'm not being overly clear I apologize.
~Arwinia
http://www.llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target262.html
To be honest I haven't played with the spell yet =/ I can't really tell you how it works or really much of what it does to formulate an opinion.
>>This statement is just like saying 'I think it's crappy a Cleric spell can be used better by non-Clerics' because non-Clerics could use it to murder in holy ground without a hit. Sure it's technically true but as long as guild behavior systems exist it'll always be true that a non-guild member that can perform that specific action it will always 'do it better' than a guild member if only because they don't incur the penalty.
No, perhaps I'm looking at it differently. It would be like if a "combat" spell was released for the empath guild specifically but it had the unfortunate side effect of causing a mild shock effect when cast. This spell is also available on a scroll so non empaths that don't have to deal with the shock system can cast it without any of the negatives that were specifically coded with the spell (in halt's case the soul system.
I don't think halt is a bad spell, I do think it should be Paladin only if it has a negative drawback that applies to the guild it's designed for that any other guild can avoid when casting.
It's 2 am and I'm tired so if I'm not being overly clear I apologize.
~Arwinia
http://www.llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target262.html
>>No, perhaps I'm looking at it differently. It would be like if a "combat" spell was released for the empath guild specifically but it had the unfortunate side effect of causing a mild shock effect when cast. This spell is also available on a scroll so non empaths that don't have to deal with the shock system can cast it without any of the negatives that were specifically coded with the spell (in halt's case the soul system.
>>I don't think halt is a bad spell, I do think it should be Paladin only if it has a negative drawback that applies to the guild it's designed for that any other guild can avoid when casting.
Here is the thing though. Halt doesn' thave a drawback coded into it that only affects Paladins. It was simply integrated into normal first strike/soul state mechanics to maintain consistancy. The consistancy in this case is that what qualifies as a first strike AGAINST a Paladin (disabling spell) and frees the Paladin up to retaliate without a first strike soul hit himself should also count as a first strike attack when used BY the Paladin up front.
In this regards, casting Halt is currently no different than typing ATTACK. If you are attacking first you get the soul hit, if you aren't you don't. It sounds to me like your complaint is more about the soul state system and associated penalties than it is about the situation with Halt specifically. Bear in mind that if you found yourself able to cast Harawep's Bonds for instance, or Break Branch and you cast either to lead off and start a conflict, you'd get the first strike penalty just as surely as if you used Halt.
GM Oolan Jeel
"The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice."
- Richard Moore
>>I don't think halt is a bad spell, I do think it should be Paladin only if it has a negative drawback that applies to the guild it's designed for that any other guild can avoid when casting.
Here is the thing though. Halt doesn' thave a drawback coded into it that only affects Paladins. It was simply integrated into normal first strike/soul state mechanics to maintain consistancy. The consistancy in this case is that what qualifies as a first strike AGAINST a Paladin (disabling spell) and frees the Paladin up to retaliate without a first strike soul hit himself should also count as a first strike attack when used BY the Paladin up front.
In this regards, casting Halt is currently no different than typing ATTACK. If you are attacking first you get the soul hit, if you aren't you don't. It sounds to me like your complaint is more about the soul state system and associated penalties than it is about the situation with Halt specifically. Bear in mind that if you found yourself able to cast Harawep's Bonds for instance, or Break Branch and you cast either to lead off and start a conflict, you'd get the first strike penalty just as surely as if you used Halt.
GM Oolan Jeel
"The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice."
- Richard Moore
>>>>No, perhaps I'm looking at it differently. It would be like if a "combat" spell was released for the empath guild specifically but it had the unfortunate side effect of causing a mild shock effect when cast. This spell is also available on a scroll so non empaths that don't have to deal with the shock system can cast it without any of the negatives that were specifically coded with the spell (in halt's case the soul system.
Oh and in response to the Empath specific example. You mean like Energy Bolt and Strange Arrow? Both are spells released to all magic guilds equally, Empaths specifically gain access to Energy Bolt by default as any casters do. And yes, they still get shock if they use them just as they would with any attack.
GM Oolan Jeel
"The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice."
- Richard Moore
Oh and in response to the Empath specific example. You mean like Energy Bolt and Strange Arrow? Both are spells released to all magic guilds equally, Empaths specifically gain access to Energy Bolt by default as any casters do. And yes, they still get shock if they use them just as they would with any attack.
GM Oolan Jeel
"The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice."
- Richard Moore
The problem is that the scroll system opens up guild specific spells like Halt to more than just the Paladin Guild.
The current scroll system works in theory, but in practice it's unfair to the players that have given up certain things in order to get certain things.
Guild defining spells should only be available to that guild. I suggest that Halt is one of the spells that most people think about when thinking about Paladins in DragonRealms, and is therefore a Paladin Guild Defining Spell.
Formerly Known As Nitish
>Alisyn edges away from you.
The current scroll system works in theory, but in practice it's unfair to the players that have given up certain things in order to get certain things.
Guild defining spells should only be available to that guild. I suggest that Halt is one of the spells that most people think about when thinking about Paladins in DragonRealms, and is therefore a Paladin Guild Defining Spell.
Formerly Known As Nitish
>Alisyn edges away from you.
Honestly... no.
Halt isn't a paladin defining spell at all.
All it does is immobilize a target. That's clean cut crowd control. EVERYONE gets that, just with a different wrapper.
If I think Paladin magic I think stuff like "BoT" "Courage" (Which would be another poor choice due to again being a very simple spell...) and "Divine Armor" off the top of my head.
Dartenian says, "The thing that makes Dragon Dance king is that it pretty much bonuses every single that can possibly be buffed for combat. Including at least two things that don't even exist."
Halt isn't a paladin defining spell at all.
All it does is immobilize a target. That's clean cut crowd control. EVERYONE gets that, just with a different wrapper.
If I think Paladin magic I think stuff like "BoT" "Courage" (Which would be another poor choice due to again being a very simple spell...) and "Divine Armor" off the top of my head.
Dartenian says, "The thing that makes Dragon Dance king is that it pretty much bonuses every single that can possibly be buffed for combat. Including at least two things that don't even exist."
>Honestly... no.
Seriously?
Every time that I have seen a Paladin in a conflict that's their spell of choice. It's like old IP for War Mages.
Granted I haven't seen many Paladins in action lately because there don't seem to be that many around. Maybe Halt isn't used these days, but it sure used to be.
>Which would be another poor choice due to again being a very simple spell...
What does spell complexity have to do with it being or not being a guild defining spell?
Formerly Known As Nitish
>Alisyn edges away from you.
Seriously?
Every time that I have seen a Paladin in a conflict that's their spell of choice. It's like old IP for War Mages.
Granted I haven't seen many Paladins in action lately because there don't seem to be that many around. Maybe Halt isn't used these days, but it sure used to be.
>Which would be another poor choice due to again being a very simple spell...
What does spell complexity have to do with it being or not being a guild defining spell?
Formerly Known As Nitish
>Alisyn edges away from you.
Was going to make a long post as there is a lot going on.. but scrapped it. I agree with several posts above and will just leave it at that.
Basically it comes down to this: I will just not bother with a halt spell to attempt a peaceful resolution and attack the problem directly. Same soul penalty now. Glad I started training a ranged weapon when the TM change we all LOVE was announced.
Basically it comes down to this: I will just not bother with a halt spell to attempt a peaceful resolution and attack the problem directly. Same soul penalty now. Glad I started training a ranged weapon when the TM change we all LOVE was announced.
>>What does spell complexity have to do with it being or not being a guild defining spell?
Because simple, straightforward, spells are ideas that are used over and over for many spells/abilities with different wrapping.
Courage may be one of the first spells that comes to mind when you think "Paladin magic" (It is for me right before BoT), but in the end it's just a +stamina stat booster. Paladins shouldn't have exclusive access to that.
A signature spell is not only a spell that should never appear on magic items/scrolls, nor is it one that the guild uses constantly, but one who's design space is reserved for that guild. Very simple elegant spells are too universal to waste that design space that way.
Moongate is a signature spell. Mental blast is not.
Dartenian says, "The thing that makes Dragon Dance king is that it pretty much bonuses every single that can possibly be buffed for combat. Including at least two things that don't even exist."
Because simple, straightforward, spells are ideas that are used over and over for many spells/abilities with different wrapping.
Courage may be one of the first spells that comes to mind when you think "Paladin magic" (It is for me right before BoT), but in the end it's just a +stamina stat booster. Paladins shouldn't have exclusive access to that.
A signature spell is not only a spell that should never appear on magic items/scrolls, nor is it one that the guild uses constantly, but one who's design space is reserved for that guild. Very simple elegant spells are too universal to waste that design space that way.
Moongate is a signature spell. Mental blast is not.
Dartenian says, "The thing that makes Dragon Dance king is that it pretty much bonuses every single that can possibly be buffed for combat. Including at least two things that don't even exist."
I am differentiating between a Signiture Spell and a Guild Defining spell.
I don't think a spell needs to use a guild only mechanic or idea to be a guild defining spell.
When I define what a Paladin is, I think of the following(just as I thought of them):
-Plate Armor
-Shield
-Halt
-Courage
-Lead
-A dash of Justice
-Etc.
Perhaps that's too simple, but that's how I look at it. Nothing wrong with Simple.
>Basically it comes down to this: I will just not bother with a halt spell to attempt a peaceful resolution and attack the problem directly. Same soul penalty now. Glad I started training a ranged weapon when the TM change we all LOVE was announced.
If I were to conflict with a Paladin, I expect Halt. If Halt is no longer going to be used because there's a better choice, then that's how things are, but that's unfortunate. I like the idea of Halt and Paladins in DragonRealms.
Formerly Known As Nitish
>Alisyn edges away from you.
I don't think a spell needs to use a guild only mechanic or idea to be a guild defining spell.
When I define what a Paladin is, I think of the following(just as I thought of them):
-Plate Armor
-Shield
-Halt
-Courage
-Lead
-A dash of Justice
-Etc.
Perhaps that's too simple, but that's how I look at it. Nothing wrong with Simple.
>Basically it comes down to this: I will just not bother with a halt spell to attempt a peaceful resolution and attack the problem directly. Same soul penalty now. Glad I started training a ranged weapon when the TM change we all LOVE was announced.
If I were to conflict with a Paladin, I expect Halt. If Halt is no longer going to be used because there's a better choice, then that's how things are, but that's unfortunate. I like the idea of Halt and Paladins in DragonRealms.
Formerly Known As Nitish
>Alisyn edges away from you.
It's clear that there are only three scenarios that will result in Halt not causing a first strike hit for soul. 1) Halt being changed to a calm 2) A change to the first strike system (And not halt) 3) An exception to mechanics. This seems very unlikely.
Honestly... (And I don't expect this to happen) I think this discussion would be served greatly by splitting it into three different conversations (all of which I support).
Neither of them is "you ruined Halt".
1) Feedback on the actual magic changes. It seemed like there were some concerns about Halt NOT related soul, and I read all the forums and there's been almost no feedback on the other changes to paladin magic, good or bad. It's all been this bandwagon.
2) A discussion of how the soul system (And first strike) works, and should work. I'm with you guys on this one - I think it should get some significant changes (and have posted several views as an outsider already). But this isn't a Halt issue, it's a First Strike/Soul issue.
3) Should something be done to fill this niche of a non soul hitting CC spell, ala hypno, single target BoT, changing the mechanics of halt to a calm... whatever.
Dartenian says, "The thing that makes Dragon Dance king is that it pretty much bonuses every single that can possibly be buffed for combat. Including at least two things that don't even exist."
Honestly... (And I don't expect this to happen) I think this discussion would be served greatly by splitting it into three different conversations (all of which I support).
Neither of them is "you ruined Halt".
1) Feedback on the actual magic changes. It seemed like there were some concerns about Halt NOT related soul, and I read all the forums and there's been almost no feedback on the other changes to paladin magic, good or bad. It's all been this bandwagon.
2) A discussion of how the soul system (And first strike) works, and should work. I'm with you guys on this one - I think it should get some significant changes (and have posted several views as an outsider already). But this isn't a Halt issue, it's a First Strike/Soul issue.
3) Should something be done to fill this niche of a non soul hitting CC spell, ala hypno, single target BoT, changing the mechanics of halt to a calm... whatever.
Dartenian says, "The thing that makes Dragon Dance king is that it pretty much bonuses every single that can possibly be buffed for combat. Including at least two things that don't even exist."
I wish there was a first tier calm spell and Halt got bumped up to second tier with the calm spell as a prereq but I doubt that will happen.
I wonder how many Paladins realize how ridiculously powerful Halt is, even now? Heh.
Rev. Reene
With a flick of your wrist you stealthily unsheathe some slim pants into your right hand.
I wonder how many Paladins realize how ridiculously powerful Halt is, even now? Heh.
Rev. Reene
With a flick of your wrist you stealthily unsheathe some slim pants into your right hand.
A non-violent resolution would be something that keeps the peace... it wouldn't enforce it.
Any spell that has ANY detrimental effect is a violent spell. Hypnotize is included in this.
If you want a non-violent "solution"... dont look for a spell to give it.
BoT is a AoE spell... and therefor falls under its own ruleset... much like firerain... It CAN grant consent under certain circumstances... But doesn't always... If you walk into a room that has firerain going... you don't get to kill the caster outright... you have options to "evade" the effects of the spell... just like if you walk into a room that has been bannered.
If you cast it in a room with other people... you are granting consent... it does not initiate a "first strike" penalty on paladin's soul because it is pardoned from that effect due to the nature of its use for peaceful intent.
Halt is not a peaceful intent spell... in any way... you are Stopping a person from being able to defend themselves... Banner of Truce "protects" everyone in the area from combat... it is not an offensive spell so no first strike penalty... but it can grant consent... just like casting clear vision on someone can grant consent if they have warned you to not cast at them.
Does that make sense?
Any spell that has ANY detrimental effect is a violent spell. Hypnotize is included in this.
If you want a non-violent "solution"... dont look for a spell to give it.
BoT is a AoE spell... and therefor falls under its own ruleset... much like firerain... It CAN grant consent under certain circumstances... But doesn't always... If you walk into a room that has firerain going... you don't get to kill the caster outright... you have options to "evade" the effects of the spell... just like if you walk into a room that has been bannered.
If you cast it in a room with other people... you are granting consent... it does not initiate a "first strike" penalty on paladin's soul because it is pardoned from that effect due to the nature of its use for peaceful intent.
Halt is not a peaceful intent spell... in any way... you are Stopping a person from being able to defend themselves... Banner of Truce "protects" everyone in the area from combat... it is not an offensive spell so no first strike penalty... but it can grant consent... just like casting clear vision on someone can grant consent if they have warned you to not cast at them.
Does that make sense?
I know if someone calms me while I'm hunting I will gladly be placing my first strike in said person's righteous junk.
Not sure if the system is able to differentiate like that but certain scenarios warrant a calming effect being detrimental such as if you're already in a conflict. Imagine someone calming you while you're in a fight so the other guy is able to continue wailing on you.
__
~Leilond
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Leilond
http://soundsoftime.bravehost.com
Not sure if the system is able to differentiate like that but certain scenarios warrant a calming effect being detrimental such as if you're already in a conflict. Imagine someone calming you while you're in a fight so the other guy is able to continue wailing on you.
__
~Leilond
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Leilond
http://soundsoftime.bravehost.com
>> Every time that I have seen a Paladin in a conflict that's their spell of choice.
>>>That doesn't make it[Halt] a signature spell.
>>>>OKay. What does then?
According to this way of thinking, it is a Cleric's signature spell, e.g., Tyrun.
And... Isn't Nitish a ranger? I'm confused. Did he trade accounts?
>>>That doesn't make it[Halt] a signature spell.
>>>>OKay. What does then?
According to this way of thinking, it is a Cleric's signature spell, e.g., Tyrun.
And... Isn't Nitish a ranger? I'm confused. Did he trade accounts?
>>Not sure if the system is able to differentiate like that but certain scenarios warrant a calming effect being detrimental such as if you're already in a conflict. Imagine someone calming you while you're in a fight so the other guy is able to continue wailing on you.
One of the features of calm, and the primary reason we allow it to be considered not an attack, is that it instantly drops if someone tries to attack you.
It also allows the victim of the effect to actually walk away and disengage from conflict, which is an important quality if you genuinely wish to use the spell to help diffuse a conflict.
-Armifer
"In our days truth is taken to result from the effacing of the living man behind the mathematical structures that think themselves out in him, rather than he be thinking them." - Emmanuel Levinas
One of the features of calm, and the primary reason we allow it to be considered not an attack, is that it instantly drops if someone tries to attack you.
It also allows the victim of the effect to actually walk away and disengage from conflict, which is an important quality if you genuinely wish to use the spell to help diffuse a conflict.
-Armifer
"In our days truth is taken to result from the effacing of the living man behind the mathematical structures that think themselves out in him, rather than he be thinking them." - Emmanuel Levinas
If halt requires a good soulstate to use, then it makes sense that characters who do not have a good soulstate should not be able to use it without a significant penalty at the very least. I would imagine this includes non-Paladins.
I thought that was how it currently works.
--Player of Szrael --
Professional Healers Association Fee Calcs: http://empathunion.com (G3 script and web calc links in the sidebar.)
PHA Crossing Healing spot: east, north, go backdoor from Empath guild. (Try gwething if no one is there!)
I thought that was how it currently works.
--Player of Szrael --
Professional Healers Association Fee Calcs: http://empathunion.com (G3 script and web calc links in the sidebar.)
PHA Crossing Healing spot: east, north, go backdoor from Empath guild. (Try gwething if no one is there!)
Here is where there is a lack of understanding.
Halt may have been designed to disable and thus 'harm' another with a defensive penalty, but halt, in my experience, has seldom been used for that primary purpose. Paladins could use halt in several ways as a non-combat option. My usual use of it is an attempt to hold a person still so I could just get to melee to get some licks in before they retreated and killed me at range (I did not start training ranged until late in my Paladin career - see above), hold a person still or prevent an attack so a dialogue could be had to resolve the situation, hold a person still so an aggrieved party could resolve a situation, or avoid a conflict entirely if the other person realized that they were likely outclassed simply because I COULD halt them.
This is the reason for the objection (futile as it is) to the first strike penalty to the spell. Give us a spell that pulls an opponent to melee and keeps them there for a time, or some sort of immobilizing spell that is not an attack so we can still utilize these options.
If I am going to take a soul hit, I will only use halt for the disabling feature so I can harm the person more effectively. In for a penny, in for a pound. No need to take the 'high road' anymore to avoid the first strike soul hit (which defeats the expressed purpose of the first strike penalty to our soul - taking the high road) I will no longer be able to aid others by halting miscreants for whatever purpose. And.. by the way.. as far as consent goes, it would not have bothered me in the least if I had been attacked because I had cast a halt on someone. I knew that risk when I cast it.
As far as advancing/targetting/aiming on a person goes - YES that should be considered an attack and should work both ways. Do not advance/target/aim at anything you are not prepared to kill. It is ludicrous to expect someone to stand there and suck up the first hit he/she knows is coming. That is not being honorable - that is being stupid.
Halt may have been designed to disable and thus 'harm' another with a defensive penalty, but halt, in my experience, has seldom been used for that primary purpose. Paladins could use halt in several ways as a non-combat option. My usual use of it is an attempt to hold a person still so I could just get to melee to get some licks in before they retreated and killed me at range (I did not start training ranged until late in my Paladin career - see above), hold a person still or prevent an attack so a dialogue could be had to resolve the situation, hold a person still so an aggrieved party could resolve a situation, or avoid a conflict entirely if the other person realized that they were likely outclassed simply because I COULD halt them.
This is the reason for the objection (futile as it is) to the first strike penalty to the spell. Give us a spell that pulls an opponent to melee and keeps them there for a time, or some sort of immobilizing spell that is not an attack so we can still utilize these options.
If I am going to take a soul hit, I will only use halt for the disabling feature so I can harm the person more effectively. In for a penny, in for a pound. No need to take the 'high road' anymore to avoid the first strike soul hit (which defeats the expressed purpose of the first strike penalty to our soul - taking the high road) I will no longer be able to aid others by halting miscreants for whatever purpose. And.. by the way.. as far as consent goes, it would not have bothered me in the least if I had been attacked because I had cast a halt on someone. I knew that risk when I cast it.
As far as advancing/targetting/aiming on a person goes - YES that should be considered an attack and should work both ways. Do not advance/target/aim at anything you are not prepared to kill. It is ludicrous to expect someone to stand there and suck up the first hit he/she knows is coming. That is not being honorable - that is being stupid.
I agree with the sentiment that for a spell to truly be used as a conflict diffuser the affected party should be able to walk away. You can't do that if you're Halted.
I also agree that there are situations where calm is an offensive effect, but I can't think of a good way to track that mechanically.
Regardless of how you personally may have used it, Halt is an offensive spell. Always was. It may not injure the affected person, but it does harm them, whether that's your intent or not. And Halt has pretty much only ever been used on me as a prequel to getting my face stomped.
I also kind of agree with Szrael that if a spell can't be used with a bad soulstate (and Halt can't, I just checked) then a non-Paladin shouldn't be able to use it either. But that's more a complaint with the soul system; the way it penalizes a Paladin's spells is a bit too much right now.
Judging by the dialogue here I'm optimistic about Paladins getting a single-target calming spell. I guess we'll see.
Rev. Reene
With a flick of your wrist you stealthily unsheathe some slim pants into your right hand.
I also agree that there are situations where calm is an offensive effect, but I can't think of a good way to track that mechanically.
Regardless of how you personally may have used it, Halt is an offensive spell. Always was. It may not injure the affected person, but it does harm them, whether that's your intent or not. And Halt has pretty much only ever been used on me as a prequel to getting my face stomped.
I also kind of agree with Szrael that if a spell can't be used with a bad soulstate (and Halt can't, I just checked) then a non-Paladin shouldn't be able to use it either. But that's more a complaint with the soul system; the way it penalizes a Paladin's spells is a bit too much right now.
Judging by the dialogue here I'm optimistic about Paladins getting a single-target calming spell. I guess we'll see.
Rev. Reene
With a flick of your wrist you stealthily unsheathe some slim pants into your right hand.
<<Regardless of how you personally may have used it, Halt is an offensive spell. Always was. It may not injure the affected person, but it does harm them, whether that's your intent or not. And Halt has pretty much only ever been used on me as a prequel to getting my face stomped.
You missed my point (or perhaps I did not effectively communicate it). Halt IS an offensive spell - always has been. Halt tended to be the prequel to face stompage because it holds the target still so the Paladin could close to melee to do the stomping (or perhaps prevent the target fleeing if a ranged weapon was used). As an added benefit, the target could not cast the DFA spell for the win. This will still be it's primary use (or stun foe depending on preference). It will no longer be used in the other ways that I mentioned. If I am going to take the first strike soul hit, I am going to attempt to get the kill soul hit as well. And if someone wants to catch up to a grave-robber, that is their problem now. No more will I be attempting to bring lawbreakers to some form of justice.
My point was that we no longer have a non-offensive option to accomplish Paladin-like things via spells.
You missed my point (or perhaps I did not effectively communicate it). Halt IS an offensive spell - always has been. Halt tended to be the prequel to face stompage because it holds the target still so the Paladin could close to melee to do the stomping (or perhaps prevent the target fleeing if a ranged weapon was used). As an added benefit, the target could not cast the DFA spell for the win. This will still be it's primary use (or stun foe depending on preference). It will no longer be used in the other ways that I mentioned. If I am going to take the first strike soul hit, I am going to attempt to get the kill soul hit as well. And if someone wants to catch up to a grave-robber, that is their problem now. No more will I be attempting to bring lawbreakers to some form of justice.
My point was that we no longer have a non-offensive option to accomplish Paladin-like things via spells.
>And... Isn't Nitish a ranger? I'm confused. Did he trade accounts?
My original character back in the day was a Ranger with a stupid name, but I do not currently have access to a Ranger character.
>Nitish is a Moon Mage.
Yeah. Nitish, on my original account, is a Moon Mage that I am tired of playing.
Currently playing a Barbarian. Really haven't looked back.
I should have played a Barbarian or a Paladin to begin with, but the original Wordachy (one of my grade school friends who talked me into playing DR) wanted a Moongate Bot. My little group of friends had Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, and Thief covered.
Formerly Known As Nitish
>Alisyn edges away from you.
My original character back in the day was a Ranger with a stupid name, but I do not currently have access to a Ranger character.
>Nitish is a Moon Mage.
Yeah. Nitish, on my original account, is a Moon Mage that I am tired of playing.
Currently playing a Barbarian. Really haven't looked back.
I should have played a Barbarian or a Paladin to begin with, but the original Wordachy (one of my grade school friends who talked me into playing DR) wanted a Moongate Bot. My little group of friends had Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, and Thief covered.
Formerly Known As Nitish
>Alisyn edges away from you.
Well I cast Hypnotize on someone... and I didn't see a soul hit... last time I did this I DID recieve a soul hit.
I'm not sure if I got a soul hit an just wasn't told... because it takes more then one bad thing to drop below pristine...
Or did the GMs tweak hypno again so it didnt give a soul hit... our last talks about this spell and GM annoucements surrounding it informed us that it would and did give a soul hit...
Or maybe I'm wrong again.
Hypnotize is a tough one... it deffinetly forstalls violence... for one side... I'm gonna go cause some trouble with it in Crossing... I mean... prevent some trouble.... and see what others think.
I personally will respond with force if you try to calm me. I cannot see how it would be considered uncombative to stop someone from being able to attack.
I'm not sure if I got a soul hit an just wasn't told... because it takes more then one bad thing to drop below pristine...
Or did the GMs tweak hypno again so it didnt give a soul hit... our last talks about this spell and GM annoucements surrounding it informed us that it would and did give a soul hit...
Or maybe I'm wrong again.
Hypnotize is a tough one... it deffinetly forstalls violence... for one side... I'm gonna go cause some trouble with it in Crossing... I mean... prevent some trouble.... and see what others think.
I personally will respond with force if you try to calm me. I cannot see how it would be considered uncombative to stop someone from being able to attack.
>I will just not bother with a halt spell to attempt a peaceful resolution and attack the problem directly. Same soul penalty now.
I'd like to point out that the soul penalty is smaller if you use Halt (or any other non-damaging attack) than it is if you ust attack them with a sword/bow/TM spell.
>* If you are using a non-lethal spell that is flagged as offensive (and this will include debuffs and holds henceforth), the penalty is reduced, but there will still be a penalty.
http://www.play.net/forums/messages.asp?forum=20&category=30&topic=1&message=150
Elemental Lord Opieus, Expert Warrior Mage of Elanthia
I'd like to point out that the soul penalty is smaller if you use Halt (or any other non-damaging attack) than it is if you ust attack them with a sword/bow/TM spell.
>* If you are using a non-lethal spell that is flagged as offensive (and this will include debuffs and holds henceforth), the penalty is reduced, but there will still be a penalty.
http://www.play.net/forums/messages.asp?forum=20&category=30&topic=1&message=150
Elemental Lord Opieus, Expert Warrior Mage of Elanthia
<<*After laughing for about 20 minutes straight regarding it, I stopped Glyph of Light from bonusing your stealing too >>
who knew? Lol.
The undead hordes would like to take this moment to remind you that they are quite happy to eat your brains so that you may test new depart.Please consider it.Hugs and kisses, Team Necro.
who knew? Lol.
The undead hordes would like to take this moment to remind you that they are quite happy to eat your brains so that you may test new depart.Please consider it.Hugs and kisses, Team Necro.
Dart,
Please understand that I'm all for what you guys and gals back behind the curtain do for us players and appreciate your efforts, however
>The days of "whoever hits first is going to win" are going away
I hope you'll understand that WHEN that day comes, I'll review my position on these changes. Until then... <shrug> I feel we remain the "target dummys" of the Realms.
Dwarf with an Axe
(watch your toes)
Please understand that I'm all for what you guys and gals back behind the curtain do for us players and appreciate your efforts, however
>The days of "whoever hits first is going to win" are going away
I hope you'll understand that WHEN that day comes, I'll review my position on these changes. Until then... <shrug> I feel we remain the "target dummys" of the Realms.
Dwarf with an Axe
(watch your toes)
>> Until then... <shrug> I feel we remain the "target dummys" of the Realms.
I dunno man. You guys can take some abuse. And you just got a chain stunner, which is a brokenly awesome thing that you can enjoy while chain stuns last.
Ask Silus about that. :\
Rev. Reene
"Shard by shard she rearranges the world.
It looks the same, she says, but it is not.
It looks as they expect, but it is not."
I dunno man. You guys can take some abuse. And you just got a chain stunner, which is a brokenly awesome thing that you can enjoy while chain stuns last.
Ask Silus about that. :\
Rev. Reene
"Shard by shard she rearranges the world.
It looks the same, she says, but it is not.
It looks as they expect, but it is not."
>>I dunno man. You guys can take some abuse. And you just got a chain stunner, which is a brokenly awesome thing that you can enjoy while chain stuns last.<<
You called it Glemm, maybe you should of been a moon mage. I'm suprised it took you this long before you started crying about it.
P.S. I wouldn't call you raging and chain "whiffing" burns after loosing a spar, me "taking" abuse either. You lost, let it go miss. :/
~Silus
Banner first, ask questions later.
You called it Glemm, maybe you should of been a moon mage. I'm suprised it took you this long before you started crying about it.
P.S. I wouldn't call you raging and chain "whiffing" burns after loosing a spar, me "taking" abuse either. You lost, let it go miss. :/
~Silus
Banner first, ask questions later.
