I recall I believe it was Rigby stating that scholarship and MD would be the main skills we will need for enchanting.

This makes me want to ask Valdrik, Rigby, Chakram or any who know and would care to answer.

Will the weapon class we are making count for a lot, a little, or really any at all in the final product?

I'm just trying to decide if I want to become much of an enchanter or I should stick to forging. Alot of what I've been hearing leads me to believe that the people who will excel at it are those that sit and listen to classes, constantly work MD ect., and that the combat orientated mages will probably be worse at it.

If the weapon class, say for me it'll be halberd\pike, and such counts for decent part of it, then I am sure I will choose to persue it, if it's set up mostly leaning towards scholarship and such (which I'm horrible at) I'll just buy a great halberd from one of the many mages I know of that have like 800 in MD and 400 in scholar, work in the forge and be set.

I am not trying to say that those with high scholar and MD skills shouldn't be the best at all, I am just trying to find out if it's is going to be something I wish to persue. I can't handle sitting listening to a class for long periods of time, I have to run around and do things or I get bored. My spellbook did double my scholarship, boring as hell it did work. It's now busted, and I can't plan my charecter on things like spellbooks which are so fragile. Though perhaps enchanting will teach scholarship well and the other skills it takes to do it, I wouldn't count on that though.

I understand if an answer won't be given, but I thought I'd try for one at least. I've talked to a few mages quite a bit higher than me that have given up on the idea of enchanting all together after hearing scholar will be a large part of it, and thought I would see how much weapons will count if I could. Hate to see people giving up before something has been released, myself included.

Beliel

<<As Rigby said, you can count on Scholarship and MD playing heavy roles in the system itself.

How much do you envision at this point? I mean, will a mage be expected to be either incredibly high circle or have high ranks in these skills for his circle to use the system? Will a 50th circle mage with minimum circling reqs be able to effectively use the system? A 70th?

I like the idea of enchanting, but having to train beyond lore reqs in scholarship.... :::shudders:::

I do thank you for taking the time to reply Valdrik, it's much appreciated.

<Spring, who is now depressed that she'll never be as good as those people who sit in front of the guild focusing cambrinths and listening to TM classes 24/7.>

<P.S. It's encourages a playing style that's very non-warrior-like. It promotes sitting around and listening :( >

I agree Spring, though it sounds a bit like the enchanting system will be set up more for the scholars of our guild, which in a way I can see. I am now envious of those that took that path, though it's not the one I am going to choose to take regardless.

Personally I'd love to see it where the weapon in question, or armor or whatever is being created played a signifigant role in the thing being made. If not you'll end up with the people with the most in say MD, scholar and whatever else makes it up being the best at making every single enchantment out there. Not that they don't deserve to be good at everything, just that no diversity seems to be to be a bad thing. At least that's the same scare I see people having with the new forging release, the person who smiths all day and never does anything else could essentially make the best of every weapon there is and therefore if they choose to mass produce them, there is essentially no point in anyone else bothering with the system but the top say 5 players who could supply the rest of the realms with every kind of weapon\armor imaginable.

I'm sure however it's handled you'll find a way so that the system lends itself to diversification in some regard, just the parrallels I see with moon mage enchanting\forging and this system do scare me a bit, to think I could lend my whole life to using halberds and someone who's never touched one ever could make a way better one only cause they played with focusing lines on a rune or listened to a teaching class for years. Selfish I know but it still scares me. Either way I'm sure I'll take a part in it, I'll just stock up on a pile of spellbooks next time the wizard comes (still have no clue why mine's unreadable)

Beliel

I'm in the exact same position as springdawning. I hunt alone and hate the crossing guild. I don't have more circles than ranks of scholarship, but it's closer than I'd like to think about right now. I missed out on the spell book and pretty much have no way to learn scholarship.

I too trained MD religously hoping to enchant someday, but unless the spellbooks get brought back I'm thinking I have no prayer.

<<Will a 50th circle mage with minimum circling reqs be able to effectively use the system? A 70th?>>

From post #5219 in our general discussions folder.

There are several key rules for enchanting which are "set in stone," regardless of the status of any given Enchanting system. Consider this the official word, please.

1) Spells will play a significant role in enchanting, some of which will be dedicated enchanting spells.
2) The target difficulty level will be comparable to the skills typical for 50th+ level characters.
3) The more potent the enchantment, the more steps required for its creation. Complex processes will be encouraged.
4) Learning to Enchant will require a quest. Quests will be encouraged for other applications.

There are other rules, but these are the ones I'm willing to reveal at this time such that there may be no doubt.

The Moon Mage Enchanting system was the first, and so naturally as designers we learned a lot from it. A lot of people are missing the potential of this system simply because I hadn't filled it with enchantments as I planned; thankfully, GM Talian is taking on that task. It would not be unfair to keep an eye on the Moon Mage system to get a general idea of the basics, since it was designed explicitly with the intent that other guilds' enchantment systems would follow in its footsteps.

Again, it's premature to ask "when," but it's more than welcomed to chatter up ideas.

ASGM Rigby Talaroat


Not sure if that clears it up for your question but thought it may.

Beliel

In thinking on it, saying I think weapon skill should play a signifigant role wasn't the best way to get my thoughts on the subject across.

Since I've heard from the creators of this system feedback is good, and I wanted to make sure I was clear in what I actually meant, I'll give my thoughts.

Magic skill should play the major role in the magical enchanting of things. Magical devices and primary magic the bulk, if not the whole of the magic ranks put into the creation system. Harness and power perception you would need to be able to cast at the level required for tasks you are doing.

Intelligence would be a measure of your capacity to acquire and apply knowledge, scholarship would be a measure of how knowledgable you are and wisdom would be the ability to use that knowledge in the most beneficial and efficient manner. So all three would be required to craft the best items.

Discipline, stamina and agility would play in depending on what steps you have to take to achieve the final product.

Mech lore\enchanting skill is a hard one to pin down. I have heard enchanting may not be a skill in itself and that mech lore is probably going away, but possibly coming back as itself later after the breakup. Regardless of that both should play a part if both exist. Enchanting skill well...I don't really have to go into that, it should play a large role. Mech lore if it exists I assume will play into creating parts of it just like it does into burins and such.

Now the weapon part of it. If we are talking about creating weapons or armor solely from magic that has mass and weight, then I would think skill in the use of that weapon would give you an innate knowledge in the areas of balance, integral structure, strength, durability, ect. Assuming we are talking about creating a weapon that still has slice, impact, puncture, balance, suitedness, and strength like mundane ones do, then I would conclude that weapon skill should play a role in the understanding of how to best create that specific one. Do I think it should be the primary factor?, no I certainly do not, but I do think it should play a small role in it's creation. In that I mean that one who is the best at all things stated but that specific weapon skill would be able to craft a fine weapon, but the person who has all those things as well as the innate knowledge of that weapon would create a better version still.

As for enchantments that aren't creating an item entirely out of magic and are purely enhancing lets say a weapon, then I do not see how skill in the use of that particular blade would help all that much, I.E. adding fire damage to a forged or store bought blade.

Of course all of this could be thrown out the window by saying....well I can make a decent weapon by just casting frost scythe or fist of stone with no prior knowledge of that weapon class at all, which would be true. All that's needed there to my knowledge would be magic ranks. Magic of course can do anything in a sense and looking at it from a real life view is not always best, but I thought I would try.

Obviously whatever methods the enchantments are created by will also play a big part in the final product just like in the moon mage enchanting\forging ect., knowing and learning the system in which we create things.

I can say I do not know what will happen, whether our enchanting will include chargable weapons like the nijare, only attuned to one element to excel at aether or fire damage and have to constantly be kept charged. Perhaps it will just be enchanting existing blades with a type of elemental damage. Maybe it will be creating things like the ice blade, where it has physical stats and we can increase those with more skill, as well as having the weapon grow\morph into other weapon classes. Possibly it will be weapons made of something like fire only that just do fire damage and have negligible weight which can be swung with 0rt, but I can't see that happening.

I do look forward to seeing what the system will become in it's fruition. If nothing else my ideas may start discussion on the topic and have peoples opinions heard.

Beliel

<<Beliel I completely understand this... scholarship and MD to enchant? Huh? Ok I can understand MD... but scholarship? What the heck for? Why not our weapon skills like in forging? Will the mages with the highest charisma have the best enchanting as well? Geez, come on people, lets get at least a little bit logical about some of this stuff ok? First we needed lores (whatever) now we need scholarship to make weapons? ::shakes head:: yes it definitely seems as if we need another side to our guild as the warriors in this guild seem to be getting shafted time and time again.>>

Okay. I'll go ahead and post some of my thought processes on the subject. First, let's take forging. Forging takes into consideration weapon ranks. This makes sense. In order to make a good weapon, you should have knowledge of that particular weapon. One way to measure this is your ranks in that particular weapon. It is illogical to think that someone who has 999 bazillion ranks in quarterstaff can forge better quality bastard swords than someone who has 100 million ranks in heavy edged. I don't think forging compares to weapon enchanting, however.

Forging is the construction of a weapon from its representative parts. Enchanting is the impression of magical energy into an already existing object/item. In Weapon Enchanting this item will be, obviously, a weapon. The question behind the issue is, does one's ranks in heavy edged weapon skill make any difference in a Mage's ability to impress a certain magical pattern into a weapon? That magical pattern is just as hard to apply to a bastard sword as it is to apply to a dagger. It doesn't take anymore intrinsic knowledge to put the pattern on a bow as it does a pike. See what I'm getting at? Forging is not Weapon Enchanting. The two are related only that they deal with weapons, and how to make them better.

This is not to say that weapon ranks won't play a part in the overall equation. Right now I just don't see how it could play a very major role. As people have stated before, you can count on lore skills playing a good part, as well as MD. The other magic skills will also probably play a part. As my thought process is going right now, if weapon skills do play a part, it probably wont be as significant as those other skills. A lot can change between now and then, so don't sweat too much over it right now :). One of the important parts of any system is that it is accessible and useable by a majority of the people who it's intended for. I'm not going to put all the horrendous man hours that it will take into this project, just so only 1% of the guild can use it. Granted, a lot of the powers of Enchanting are being designed for higher levels, but I'm hoping to include a wide range of skill levels into this.


Valdrik


To deny one's impulses, is to deny the very thing that makes us human. -Mouse

<<Valdrik, here's the way I look at it: Knowledge of how the weapon works is required for the enchanting to be effective.

Depends on what the individual enchantment is designed to do. Certainly, weapon skill would be irrelevant in an enchantment that strengthens the metal of the weapon, for example, or gives it a sharper edge. However, a balancing enchantment may be a different story as it could indeed be argued that a skilled swordsman would be more capable of determining what optimum balance would be. And certainly, if one were to imagine an enchantment that served to give a skill bonus to the wielder of the enchanted weapon then the weapon skill of the enchanter would seem to be of vital importance.

My problem is that scholarship is passive learning. I was not in realms for a spellbook, so I have no way to learn it. So if I desire to learn it I have to severely affect the way I RP, where I live, etc.

I have no problem with it being included, but offer me a way to learn it other than listening to others if it is going to be a cornerstone of enchanting.

<Ok I can understand MD... but scholarship? What the heck for?>

<I have no problem with it being included, but offer me a way to learn it other than listening to others if it is going to be a cornerstone of enchanting. >

<Scholarship seems kinda wierd to me, since it's listening/reading ability...>

Just thought I'd add in the persepctive of an (recently) enchanting moon mage on this issue. Moon mages use scholarship to enchant because of the way our system is designed. To enchant an object, you put sigils on it repressenting certain constellations. You need to memorize these sigils before you can put them on the object. To do this, you STUDY the constellation, either from the sky or from a scroll. The better your scholarship, the better your odds of memorizing the sigil on your first try.

Since the GMs have said scholarship will play a big role and that WM enchanting will be based on MM enchanting, I'd guess that you'll have a somewhat similar system.

There is still the issue of how to learn scholarship in preparation for the release of the system. All I can tell ya there is that a lot of moon mages are also in the position of needed scholarship they can't easily get, but we need it for our new reqs.

No offense Gyren, but how in the world would you get scholarship from hunting? IMHO you should get more scholar from teaching, even a little bit more than you already do would be helpful.

I agree with most of what Valdrik said. It makes sense. We ourselves aren't actually forging the weapons, we're probably going to be putting spells and runes on them. While knowledge of the weapon type might help us figure out the handle from the blade, it probably shouldn't play too big of a role.

I'd like to add that MD should obviously play a factor in enchanting -- however. In the hayday of our guild, some of our 'glorious elders' AFK scripted up the level charts by abusing the heck out of MD. In other words, they got godly levels of MD in while the rest of us were still wrestling swamp trolls.

When the changes to how MD was learned off of cambrinth came in, certain individuals had ALREADY earned a gross advantage rankwise in the MD department. I think there should definitely be a cap (not that there wouldn't be) on how much MD can help you with enchanting. I don't know, the cut off where it matters should be at 500-600 ranks, which is as high as I can conceiveably see any NORMAL people getting it. Anything higher just shouldn't help more.

I'm sure caps will be in place anyways, I just hope they aren't made to accomodate the MD league.

~/\/\eanne~
"What happened to the thing in a bag?"
"It escaped. In to the mountains."

what about appraisal skill? I wouldnt think someone that couldnt get certains on the type of weapon they were enchanting would be able to do a very good job enchanting it.

No, I mean as in ...HOW? It makes NO sense. Scholarly skills are the exact opposite of combatant ones. True you can be knowledgeable at using swords, but that's hardly what I think is meant by the word "scholarship" in this sense. I believe it's meant more in the terms of book knowledge. And in my opinion, rightfully so.

~/\/\eanne~
"What happened to the thing in a bag?"
"It escaped. In to the mountains."

Ok time to set out a few points.

1.Being in combat most of the time should not make you the best at everything. This place is way too combat centric as it is. For the most part being in combat should make you better at combat.

2.Figuring out how to and the actual act of making something is very much a 'knowledge' activitiy hence the use of lores.

3.Scholarship was to be used basically in the understanding of the instructions(as I understand it). As someone who sometimes has to read RFCs and other cryptic specs about computers and realizing that most engineers have the writing ability of 3 year olds I can see the need for scholarship quite plainly.

4.Complaining that you will have to 'split your training' to be good at multiple things seems the same as complaining 2 + 2 = 4.

5.As far as complaining that something can't be learned very well in combat well once again combat isn't the end-all be-all of training. In fact some skills are possibly too well trained in combat or after combat. Appraisal is a good example.

Supreme Bunny Overlord Zairius

<I've reread Rigby's post a few times, since it's a nice resource of good information. There's lots of juicy tidbits in there, but I have to admit my eye was repeatedly drawn to the little "+" sign following the 50th circle designation in his comment above. I'm still pondering the possibility that little plus sign is the single most meaningful character in the entire post, if not outweighing the rest of the commentary altogether.>

If the WM system is designed similarly to the MM system, the enchanting test will be based on skills, not circles. Our was also designed for "50+" mages, but there are many, many people that passed the tests before that. I think (could very well be wrong) that the earliest anyone passed was 30th. I passed at 33rd. It just depends on how badly you want to enchant and how you like to train.

<The odds of these levels of numbers ever allowing us to create anything but pretty sparklers would seem remote to me.>

Yup, this is the way MM enchanting works.

<Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the skill levels needed to enchant weapons and armors that make people say "Holy cow! That's awesome! I've got to have it! Enchant me one, please!" would at a minimum be double those numbers as a starting point and go up from there.>

This is the case with our one in-demand enchantment, gweths.

<And the jaw-dropping, heart-stopping, drive 'em to their knees and make 'em beg for mercy enchantments could easily justify treble those number levels, also as a starting point.>

Well, we don't have any of these.

<<Forging is the construction of a weapon from its representative parts. Enchanting is the impression of magical energy into an already existing object/item.>>

This is the part that really answered my question and in a way dashed alot of my hopes. It certainly makes me wonder what the sentient weapons will be like.

I keep throwing around thoughts of our enchanting in my mind. So far it's just really hard for me to get past the part where as far as I know with the new metals and forging it's already hitting the caps of how powerful they want weapons to be in dr. So that leaves us not actually increasing the damage of the weapon very much if at all, or tweaking down how well weapons can be forged in the first place to allow our system to have room to improve them, which I really can't see happening.

From all I know about the moon mage enchanting, it is probably the most diverse system going, with over a million possibilities. I do know how much the moon mage system was tweaked down since it was originally made, and I realize that will probably be something that will be avoided this time around.

Where does that leave us?, well that I really can't figure out. I've seen anti-es on blades and things like anti-shear, but I can't see us expanding beyond elemental enchantments. Making things to counteract our own spells and spreading those around can't exactly be good for us as a guild. I can't see our enchanting being nothing but show either. Moon mages already have enchantments that help in the particular weapon skill by boosting your ranks in it soo.....I suppose I should just wait and see, but guessing is all part of the fun.

Beliel

Scholarship makes sense for enchanting.
I'm not going to try and persuade all the players of Warrior Mages that that's the case, but it is.

I think the problem is that most Warrior Mages aren't going to have nearly as much Scholarship as Magical Devices, so you guys are worried that your enchanting will suffer. This is a justified concern.

One poster said they can't learn Sholarship well because that would interfere with how they role play.
I sorry to say this, but if you role play your character to where you hunt all the time, then of course your character isn't going to be a scholarly person. Role play is another way of saying 'how your character lives'. Obviously, this character isn't a scholar. If you want to have ranks in Scholarship and be scholarly, then do scholarly stuff. You can't expect your character to know about stuff they don't do on a regular basis.

That said, I think there needs to be more, and easier ways to learn scholarship. If you're not a Moon Mage, working Scholarship is fairly hard. And while what I said above is true about having to actually practice something to learn it, from a purely OOC perspective, it's not fun to play a game where you're just sitting in a Scholarship class for 8 hours. To top it off your Guild has Lore tertiary, making it that much more hard to learn it.

So to sum up, Scholarship does make sense for enchanting, but there needs to be more sources for learning it... Sooner than later.

Eldrad

Hmmm, didn't realize that. Some how I got it in my head that they were Weapons and Armor Secondary.


Eldrad

One poster said they can't learn Sholarship well because that would interfere with how they role play.

I said that. My point being is since I don't have a spellbook, to learn scholarship I have to live in crossing or someother place where I can guarantee that people will be around to teach me.

Many scholars are solitary people, why can't there be a way for me to be a scholarly person, without having to live in a crowded area? That was my point, you're forcing me to live and act in a way that isn't the way I RP. I have no problem devoting time to learning the skill, I just don't want to have to listen to all the drivel that goes along with you average class at the guild.

Kakatal --Misanthrope of Hara'jaal