Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
So I have 1 spell slot open, about to have a second.
My current Spell List is:
ES, AC, Ala, Fiss, Ael
Al, Tingle, SD, LB, CL, GZ
FS, FB, DB, MoF, FR, MoA
FRB, IP
Tremor, SUF, FoS, EaS, MaB
Zephyr, PW, Sho, Vert, SW, TC, YS
Now two i'm between getting now are anthers call and Aeg. Im getting to a point where my lack of shield is becoming very hindering.
Does anyone know how much of a boost to shield you get with AeG? Also I was wondering casting a small armworn, how long does it last? and how much mana you put into Aeg, does that affect how much of a boost you get to shield.
Any tips on anthers call would be nice, other spells i was thinking about are possibly RoS, or something from the Water Book.
Because of sorcery et. al, there's yet another moratorium on spell development pending a post Magic 3.0 spell review.
However there's this one that is in QC or something so we'll see it soon:
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Blufmor_Garaen
The name is Gamgweth for great wind hands.
"Magic has rules and so does posting on these forums." -Annwyl
However there's this one that is in QC or something so we'll see it soon:
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Blufmor_Garaen
The name is Gamgweth for great wind hands.
"Magic has rules and so does posting on these forums." -Annwyl
I had this great spell idea...
it's called Asphyxiate.
i'd give it a prereq of vertigo.
The insidious Asphyxiate spell forces air from the victim's lungs or respiratory organs, causing the unfortunate individual to slowly choke to death. It has no effect on undead or creatures that do not breathe air.
_________________________________
A Dragon Priest assassin softly snarls to itself, "Kill a man, and you are an assssssassssssin! Kill millionsss of men, and you are a conqueror! Kill everyone, and you are a god!"
it's called Asphyxiate.
i'd give it a prereq of vertigo.
The insidious Asphyxiate spell forces air from the victim's lungs or respiratory organs, causing the unfortunate individual to slowly choke to death. It has no effect on undead or creatures that do not breathe air.
_________________________________
A Dragon Priest assassin softly snarls to itself, "Kill a man, and you are an assssssassssssin! Kill millionsss of men, and you are a conqueror! Kill everyone, and you are a god!"
>> Wasn't that suppose to be a spell some time ago?
Yes, it's been 'Planned' for quite some time. Elanthipedia link below.
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Asphyxiate
It looks like it would be a fun 'insta-kill' spell. Not sure how it would work for partial-success if the cast didn't completely kill the target. Maybe a Vitality + Balance hit or Vit hit + Stun for partial success? Also, it should have some lingering pulse effects like Vertigo since being choked to near-death is still a traumatic experience, even if you survive. Should probably have a re-cast timer per target, to prevent SPAM casting it to Vit-loss someone to death.
This is shaping into a pretty interesting spell.... any other ideas out there?
Another thought: Maybe partial success should drain fatigue as well since, lets be honest, you are going to be out-of-breath for a while and sucking in air... like a sprinter catching his breath after a race.
Yes, it's been 'Planned' for quite some time. Elanthipedia link below.
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Asphyxiate
It looks like it would be a fun 'insta-kill' spell. Not sure how it would work for partial-success if the cast didn't completely kill the target. Maybe a Vitality + Balance hit or Vit hit + Stun for partial success? Also, it should have some lingering pulse effects like Vertigo since being choked to near-death is still a traumatic experience, even if you survive. Should probably have a re-cast timer per target, to prevent SPAM casting it to Vit-loss someone to death.
This is shaping into a pretty interesting spell.... any other ideas out there?
Another thought: Maybe partial success should drain fatigue as well since, lets be honest, you are going to be out-of-breath for a while and sucking in air... like a sprinter catching his breath after a race.
Ideas...
Asphyxiate: Duration dependent on mana used to cast. It begins with fatigue hits. Once fatigue is gone or nearly gone it begins hitting vitality. So, a low prepped one would just fatigue the target, unless repeatedly cast. A high prepped spell would kill the target but after draining fatigue and vitality so it's not an insta-kill.
Or, just throw in the existing drowning mechanics.
Asphyxiate: Duration dependent on mana used to cast. It begins with fatigue hits. Once fatigue is gone or nearly gone it begins hitting vitality. So, a low prepped one would just fatigue the target, unless repeatedly cast. A high prepped spell would kill the target but after draining fatigue and vitality so it's not an insta-kill.
Or, just throw in the existing drowning mechanics.
>>This spell doesn't come off as a kill spell, or one that makes sense. A debuffer or a disabler makes more sense for sure. Possibly give out a defensive penalty. It wouldn't be very easy to defend against something if you are on the ground gasping for air.
Problem being, we already have that with Vertigo.
Problem being, we already have that with Vertigo.
I always figured it would be a magic version of choke and you would just kill the Mage, leave the room, or just retreat from melee( I figured it would be a melee spell)
_________________________________
A Dragon Priest assassin softly snarls to itself, "Kill a man, and you are an assssssassssssin! Kill millionsss of men, and you are a conqueror! Kill everyone, and you are a god!"
_________________________________
A Dragon Priest assassin softly snarls to itself, "Kill a man, and you are an assssssassssssin! Kill millionsss of men, and you are a conqueror! Kill everyone, and you are a god!"
>With enough skill you can knock someone out, that's a disabler.
No control over this aspect, though. I would love a guaranteed knockout like branch break or mental blast.
I also want Explosive Decompression... not sure what kind of damage it should do to avoid being redundant, though.
"Magic has rules and so does posting on these forums." -Annwyl
No control over this aspect, though. I would love a guaranteed knockout like branch break or mental blast.
I also want Explosive Decompression... not sure what kind of damage it should do to avoid being redundant, though.
"Magic has rules and so does posting on these forums." -Annwyl
>>I also want Explosive Decompression... not sure what kind of damage it should do to avoid being redundant, though.
A pretty common problem across all level of suggestions, from players to GMs.
Take disablers, for example. I can think of six different ways Warrior Mages could disable a target and that doesn't even require me to sit down and actually try. But even if each of those spells has some minor difference, it is ultimately just six hopelessly redundant spells.
The Necromancer folder recently had a rather silly but vaguely passable spell suggestion that falls under the same problem -- sure, I can imagine a Necromancer doing it... but Necromancers already have that function in another spell, so why bother making a new spell that does the same thing?
There's three options that I can see.
1) We bite the bullet and embrace redundancy.
2) We flat out tell people that their pet idea is nice but meaninglessly redundant.
3) We try more Energy Bolt-esque rather generic but malleable spells.
-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
A pretty common problem across all level of suggestions, from players to GMs.
Take disablers, for example. I can think of six different ways Warrior Mages could disable a target and that doesn't even require me to sit down and actually try. But even if each of those spells has some minor difference, it is ultimately just six hopelessly redundant spells.
The Necromancer folder recently had a rather silly but vaguely passable spell suggestion that falls under the same problem -- sure, I can imagine a Necromancer doing it... but Necromancers already have that function in another spell, so why bother making a new spell that does the same thing?
There's three options that I can see.
1) We bite the bullet and embrace redundancy.
2) We flat out tell people that their pet idea is nice but meaninglessly redundant.
3) We try more Energy Bolt-esque rather generic but malleable spells.
-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 feel like a lot of the redundant suggestions are primarily due to people being frustrated that they picked a certain spellbook or two to focus on at one point, then a spell in another book becomes useful (or one you're using changes roles/becomes not useful) and they are effectively stuck with their choice.
Hopefully the magic rewrite will fix the whole "You can't have this second tier spell in this other book until you get a first tier spell that is functionally similar to one you already have and a spell that's useless by most accounts (Arc Light? Earth Sense? Paeldryth's Wrath?).
I would personally be thrilled if some spells got synergy bonuses based on spells you already knew, but they had more fluid requirements for learning at a base level.
Example:
Chain Lightning - Requires a first tier, second tier, and third tier spell in any book. Is more powerful (or maybe instead can hit more targets? Something to make it more useful) if those spells are GZ, LB, and SD rather than say, FRS, FB, and YS.
Kills two birds with one stone by allowing people to have more spell variety choices while also rewarding players who pick an element to specialize in.
Maybe rather than increased power or targets or something that made people feel like they had to get the prereq spells in the same book anyway for the sake of using the spell the way they know it, there could be secondary effects. Something like:
<Earth mage with tier prereqs casts LB>:
Lightning bolt as normal.
<Electricity mage with Electricity tier prereqs casts LB>:
LB leaves the target wreathed in sparks and electrical pulses and takes periodic very short stuns and nerve damage pulses after the initial cast for 10 sec or so.
Or something.
- Starlear -
Hopefully the magic rewrite will fix the whole "You can't have this second tier spell in this other book until you get a first tier spell that is functionally similar to one you already have and a spell that's useless by most accounts (Arc Light? Earth Sense? Paeldryth's Wrath?).
I would personally be thrilled if some spells got synergy bonuses based on spells you already knew, but they had more fluid requirements for learning at a base level.
Example:
Chain Lightning - Requires a first tier, second tier, and third tier spell in any book. Is more powerful (or maybe instead can hit more targets? Something to make it more useful) if those spells are GZ, LB, and SD rather than say, FRS, FB, and YS.
Kills two birds with one stone by allowing people to have more spell variety choices while also rewarding players who pick an element to specialize in.
Maybe rather than increased power or targets or something that made people feel like they had to get the prereq spells in the same book anyway for the sake of using the spell the way they know it, there could be secondary effects. Something like:
<Earth mage with tier prereqs casts LB>:
Lightning bolt as normal.
<Electricity mage with Electricity tier prereqs casts LB>:
LB leaves the target wreathed in sparks and electrical pulses and takes periodic very short stuns and nerve damage pulses after the initial cast for 10 sec or so.
Or something.
- Starlear -
Paeldryth's Wrath is actually pretty good. One of our few crowd control spells, throws Naptha with TM, does impact damage.
I suppose Explosive Decomp could fill a role in Air Manipulation of a spell with a precise-target option, which the book lacks.
Asphyxiate as a single-target fatigue damage would have a niche since your other option is area-affect Frostbite.
"Magic has rules and so does posting on these forums." -Annwyl
I suppose Explosive Decomp could fill a role in Air Manipulation of a spell with a precise-target option, which the book lacks.
Asphyxiate as a single-target fatigue damage would have a niche since your other option is area-affect Frostbite.
"Magic has rules and so does posting on these forums." -Annwyl
I'm really not sure I want to look at things on a book by book level. In that case, I am better off removing Elemental books entirely and giving you an >ALIGN <element> command instead.
I'm sympathetic to people wanting to associate with one element, but the idea of supporting Fire Mages and Air Mages equally to "Warrior Mages" is all kinds of not practical.
-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'm sympathetic to people wanting to associate with one element, but the idea of supporting Fire Mages and Air Mages equally to "Warrior Mages" is all kinds of not practical.
-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'm really not sure I want to look at things on a book by book level. In that case, I am better off removing Elemental books entirely and giving you an >ALIGN <element> command instead.
When our spell trees are synonymous to our books, I'm not sure how you plan to do anything but look at them on a book-by-book level. It's already structured that way.
I'd much prefer thinking continued along those lines: the fairly rigid structure of WM spell trees is a point of differentiation from the way we evolve compared to the unstructured progression of other guilds.
We have our must-have spells, but more often because they're good, than because they're lynchpins of a spell tree.
"Magic has rules and so does posting on these forums." -Annwyl
When our spell trees are synonymous to our books, I'm not sure how you plan to do anything but look at them on a book-by-book level. It's already structured that way.
I'd much prefer thinking continued along those lines: the fairly rigid structure of WM spell trees is a point of differentiation from the way we evolve compared to the unstructured progression of other guilds.
We have our must-have spells, but more often because they're good, than because they're lynchpins of a spell tree.
"Magic has rules and so does posting on these forums." -Annwyl
>>When our spell trees are synonymous to our books, I'm not sure how you plan to do anything but look at them on a book-by-book level. It's already structured that way.
In part, by substantially changing how spell trees are designed. The new system is able to understand far more complex logic for setting requirements, which makes a requirement such as "two Fire Manipulation spells" or "Aura Sight or Seer's Sense" conveniently achievable.
Zeyurn is probably speaking in more detail about this at Simucon, so I'll leave the implications up in the air for the moment.
-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
In part, by substantially changing how spell trees are designed. The new system is able to understand far more complex logic for setting requirements, which makes a requirement such as "two Fire Manipulation spells" or "Aura Sight or Seer's Sense" conveniently achievable.
Zeyurn is probably speaking in more detail about this at Simucon, so I'll leave the implications up in the air for the moment.
-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
>>but the idea of supporting Fire Mages and Air Mages equally to "Warrior Mages" is all kinds of not practical.
That makes me sad. A focus on one element is one advantage we have to make ourselves a little more unique within the guild. It is also consistent with guild history (a vol. 3 is mentioned but I've not found if it exists in any library in game).
That makes me sad. A focus on one element is one advantage we have to make ourselves a little more unique within the guild. It is also consistent with guild history (a vol. 3 is mentioned but I've not found if it exists in any library in game).
>1) We bite the bullet and embrace redundancy.
>2) We flat out tell people that their pet idea is nice but meaninglessly redundant.
>3) We try more Energy Bolt-esque rather generic but malleable spells.
Not a WM player, but I have a similar story from the ranger side. I use STRA over DEVI because I like the messaging better.
Having multiple spells that achieve the essentially same results through different means lets players give their character a specific feel through spell choice.
Allowing different messaging for the same spell template might help free up creativity without having to reinvent the wheel. This could potentially be what you meant by #3, of course.
-pete
>2) We flat out tell people that their pet idea is nice but meaninglessly redundant.
>3) We try more Energy Bolt-esque rather generic but malleable spells.
Not a WM player, but I have a similar story from the ranger side. I use STRA over DEVI because I like the messaging better.
Having multiple spells that achieve the essentially same results through different means lets players give their character a specific feel through spell choice.
Allowing different messaging for the same spell template might help free up creativity without having to reinvent the wheel. This could potentially be what you meant by #3, of course.
-pete
>>That makes me sad. A focus on one element is one advantage we have to make ourselves a little more unique within the guild. It is also consistent with guild history (a vol. 3 is mentioned but I've not found if it exists in any library in game).
Look, I personally don't like being the one that has to finally step in and make people sad with the crushing realism of it all, but let's walk through it together:
Do you really want us to create the Fire Disabler, then the Water disabler, then the Air disabler, then the Earth disabler, then the Electricity disabler, then the Aether disabler? Then finally start on the Fire DD TM, the Water DD TM, the Air DD TM, the Earth DD TM... and then the Fire damage reducer spell, the Water damage reducer spell...
I'm totally OK with saying to idiosyncratic likes and dislikes "Hey, you aren't injured if you don't like and don't use the new spell." But saying that 5/6ths of the Warrior Mage spellbook should be redundant and useless to you is a bit beyond the pale.
>>Allowing different messaging for the same spell template might help free up creativity without having to reinvent the wheel. This could potentially be what you meant by #3, of course.
I mean basically Energy Bolt. Fairly simplistic messaging that has Elemental madlibs. Sub-optimal, but the most direct way to support <element> Mages.
-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
Look, I personally don't like being the one that has to finally step in and make people sad with the crushing realism of it all, but let's walk through it together:
Do you really want us to create the Fire Disabler, then the Water disabler, then the Air disabler, then the Earth disabler, then the Electricity disabler, then the Aether disabler? Then finally start on the Fire DD TM, the Water DD TM, the Air DD TM, the Earth DD TM... and then the Fire damage reducer spell, the Water damage reducer spell...
I'm totally OK with saying to idiosyncratic likes and dislikes "Hey, you aren't injured if you don't like and don't use the new spell." But saying that 5/6ths of the Warrior Mage spellbook should be redundant and useless to you is a bit beyond the pale.
>>Allowing different messaging for the same spell template might help free up creativity without having to reinvent the wheel. This could potentially be what you meant by #3, of course.
I mean basically Energy Bolt. Fairly simplistic messaging that has Elemental madlibs. Sub-optimal, but the most direct way to support <element> Mages.
-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
>>Do you really want us to create the Fire Disabler, then the Water disabler, then the Air disabler, then the Earth disabler, then the Electricity disabler, then the Aether disabler? Then finally start on the Fire DD TM, the Water DD TM, the Air DD TM, the Earth DD TM... and then the Fire damage reducer spell, the Water damage reducer spell...
Not at all what I meant... in the slightest. What I'm saying is if I had a bonus to only using water spells I'd give up all my air spells I use to buff with. If all elemental books had the exact same spells then that would make elemental specialists even less unique which is the opposite of my first post.
Perhaps at the root of this we're talking about two different things.
I don't care if the element I follow has no disabler, but I would like a bonus to my element for giving up others. Specialization right now only seems to be useful for RP.
When you said >>supporting Fire Mages and Air Mages equally to "Warrior Mages" is all kinds of not practical.
... I took that to mean if you're not a generalist you're out of luck.
So hopefully we're just talking about two different things.
Not at all what I meant... in the slightest. What I'm saying is if I had a bonus to only using water spells I'd give up all my air spells I use to buff with. If all elemental books had the exact same spells then that would make elemental specialists even less unique which is the opposite of my first post.
Perhaps at the root of this we're talking about two different things.
I don't care if the element I follow has no disabler, but I would like a bonus to my element for giving up others. Specialization right now only seems to be useful for RP.
When you said >>supporting Fire Mages and Air Mages equally to "Warrior Mages" is all kinds of not practical.
... I took that to mean if you're not a generalist you're out of luck.
So hopefully we're just talking about two different things.
>>Perhaps at the root of this we're talking about two different things.
When I made that comment, I meant "giving every element every spell which we consider appropriate for a Warrior Mage to have."
Which is, really, the only way we could ever do hardcore <element> mages that won't result in <random element> mage complaining bitterly about all he lacks compared to <second random element>.
-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
When I made that comment, I meant "giving every element every spell which we consider appropriate for a Warrior Mage to have."
Which is, really, the only way we could ever do hardcore <element> mages that won't result in <random element> mage complaining bitterly about all he lacks compared to <second random element>.
-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 I'm understanding what Magic 3.0 will entail, tier will have less impact on the accuracy/power of a TM spell. This makes me wonder what we're going to do with 18(?) TM spells we have. Admitedly we have different gimics, multi-shot, AOE, store-for-later, create a weapon, etc... But there's not a large difference between aether lance and aether lash other than the accuracy/power.
I really liked the idea of synergies between spells. Perhaps knowledge of Ice Patch adds an element of balance reduction, knowledge of Aether Lash increases accuracy of all spells, and other bonuses with spells that epitomize some property. I also like the align <element> idea as a way to get rid of a lot of the redundant TM spells. I could suggest a complete rewrite of all our spells based on it, but it's doubtful anything like that would happen.
Any way spells could require knowledge of a pathway? For example, Aether Lash might no longer require Aether Lance, but require Pathway Focus Accuracy... Also, wasn't there something about more pathway trees before Wythor's time became more limited?
Elemental Lord Opieus, Expert Warrior Mage of Elanthia
"For a bunch of radical empiricists, the Philosophers' system relies on a whole lot of faith." ~Armifer
I really liked the idea of synergies between spells. Perhaps knowledge of Ice Patch adds an element of balance reduction, knowledge of Aether Lash increases accuracy of all spells, and other bonuses with spells that epitomize some property. I also like the align <element> idea as a way to get rid of a lot of the redundant TM spells. I could suggest a complete rewrite of all our spells based on it, but it's doubtful anything like that would happen.
Any way spells could require knowledge of a pathway? For example, Aether Lash might no longer require Aether Lance, but require Pathway Focus Accuracy... Also, wasn't there something about more pathway trees before Wythor's time became more limited?
Elemental Lord Opieus, Expert Warrior Mage of Elanthia
"For a bunch of radical empiricists, the Philosophers' system relies on a whole lot of faith." ~Armifer
>>I also like the align <element> idea as a way to get rid of a lot of the redundant TM spells. I could suggest a complete rewrite of all our spells based on it, but it's doubtful anything like that would happen.
It's on the far end of possibility, but not out of the question. I have considered trashing the Warrior Mage spellbooks as they currently stand and rearranging them based on functional categories rather than element.
This probably won't happen, but it's not an unspeakable idea.
-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
It's on the far end of possibility, but not out of the question. I have considered trashing the Warrior Mage spellbooks as they currently stand and rearranging them based on functional categories rather than element.
This probably won't happen, but it's not an unspeakable idea.
-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
>It's on the far end of possibility, but not out of the question
I guess it doesn't hurt anything for me to detail out my suggestion, then, on the off chance you do go that route.
Instead of having a dozen different spells that are extremely similar, have a base spell for TM and a base spell for disabling. Further spells provide bonuses, or more options. To determine the flavor of the spell, you align <element>. Further, each element has different base properties, doing slightly different damage types. Earth does impact, air does slicing, aether does puncture, water does cold, and fire and electricity are obvious.
Bonus meta-spells would include things like improved accuracy, and ways to improved impact, improved slicing, etc. The improved damage would add some of that type of damage to every spell cast, except for the elemental types. Fire would obviously not gain any benefit from cold damage, and vice versa.
Option spells would include things that are currently gimics like AoE, and item creation. These would add options at the time of the cast. For example, cast aoe would affect all critters engaged (and cast area would affect the entire room, to prevent consent issues). Other options might include multishot, knockback, etc.
Creating items would depend on the element currently aligned to. Water and Earth already have something for them. It shouldn't be too difficult to add something for the others. Maybe a halberd for aether (like the lance, except we already have a pike in FrS), staffs (staff sling, short staff, quarterstaff) for air, and bolts/arrows for fire and electricity?
Something similar would be true for disablers. Each element would be a different disable. Earth might be balance, electricity might be stun, water fatigue, aether mana, fire concentration, air immobilize/roundtime. Option spells would also have an impact. AoE would still make the spell affect multiple targets, multishot would have it pulse over time, etc. Defence items could be created with cast item.
Creating defense items would also depend on the element. Earth might make a shield like Granite Aegis, the other elements might make different armors. I'd have a really hard time justifying any particular placement here as the spellbooks don't lend themselves well to particular armors. Perhaps this could just not be an option for the disablers, or it could create other things as well like brawling weapons that do elemental damage.
This might reduce the number of spells a little too much, so the meta spells could be taken multiple times to increase accuracy or damage types more. Some of this might also be overpowered, providing too many options. If so, the disabler options and TM options could be seperated into different spell trees entirely. So, you might have Area of Effect Disabling and Area of Effect Targeting as seperate spells.
Buff spells would probably remain as they are now. There might need to be some limit on how often/fast you can align to a different element. Possibly a roundtime based on which element your switching from/to. Opposites being the longest roundtime, and going down from there, or a down time based on your last switch from/to.
Elemental Lord Opieus, Expert Warrior Mage of Elanthia
"For a bunch of radical empiricists, the Philosophers' system relies on a whole lot of faith." ~Armifer
I guess it doesn't hurt anything for me to detail out my suggestion, then, on the off chance you do go that route.
Instead of having a dozen different spells that are extremely similar, have a base spell for TM and a base spell for disabling. Further spells provide bonuses, or more options. To determine the flavor of the spell, you align <element>. Further, each element has different base properties, doing slightly different damage types. Earth does impact, air does slicing, aether does puncture, water does cold, and fire and electricity are obvious.
Bonus meta-spells would include things like improved accuracy, and ways to improved impact, improved slicing, etc. The improved damage would add some of that type of damage to every spell cast, except for the elemental types. Fire would obviously not gain any benefit from cold damage, and vice versa.
Option spells would include things that are currently gimics like AoE, and item creation. These would add options at the time of the cast. For example, cast aoe would affect all critters engaged (and cast area would affect the entire room, to prevent consent issues). Other options might include multishot, knockback, etc.
Creating items would depend on the element currently aligned to. Water and Earth already have something for them. It shouldn't be too difficult to add something for the others. Maybe a halberd for aether (like the lance, except we already have a pike in FrS), staffs (staff sling, short staff, quarterstaff) for air, and bolts/arrows for fire and electricity?
Something similar would be true for disablers. Each element would be a different disable. Earth might be balance, electricity might be stun, water fatigue, aether mana, fire concentration, air immobilize/roundtime. Option spells would also have an impact. AoE would still make the spell affect multiple targets, multishot would have it pulse over time, etc. Defence items could be created with cast item.
Creating defense items would also depend on the element. Earth might make a shield like Granite Aegis, the other elements might make different armors. I'd have a really hard time justifying any particular placement here as the spellbooks don't lend themselves well to particular armors. Perhaps this could just not be an option for the disablers, or it could create other things as well like brawling weapons that do elemental damage.
This might reduce the number of spells a little too much, so the meta spells could be taken multiple times to increase accuracy or damage types more. Some of this might also be overpowered, providing too many options. If so, the disabler options and TM options could be seperated into different spell trees entirely. So, you might have Area of Effect Disabling and Area of Effect Targeting as seperate spells.
Buff spells would probably remain as they are now. There might need to be some limit on how often/fast you can align to a different element. Possibly a roundtime based on which element your switching from/to. Opposites being the longest roundtime, and going down from there, or a down time based on your last switch from/to.
Elemental Lord Opieus, Expert Warrior Mage of Elanthia
"For a bunch of radical empiricists, the Philosophers' system relies on a whole lot of faith." ~Armifer
I am pretty happy with what my warrior mage is now. Why is there a big focus on changing what is working so well?
I don't see a dozen spells that are similar in our spell books. As a warmage grows yes you tend to not use some spells as often. That isn't to say they didn't serve their purpose. We are limited to what we can do since we specialize in magical doom. Each spell has a little something different than the next adding a little flavor to the mixture.
After five years and 115 circles later i'd hate to log in and find my Warrior Mage anything less than a Warrior Mage.
- Erixx
I don't see a dozen spells that are similar in our spell books. As a warmage grows yes you tend to not use some spells as often. That isn't to say they didn't serve their purpose. We are limited to what we can do since we specialize in magical doom. Each spell has a little something different than the next adding a little flavor to the mixture.
After five years and 115 circles later i'd hate to log in and find my Warrior Mage anything less than a Warrior Mage.
- Erixx
Please reassess our spellbooks. Add in more utility for combat, keep the DFA as long as possible, and keep the standard set of buffs we have currently. As it stands the only time I use any TM spells other than Aether Lash, Lightning Bolt or Mark of Arhat is for killing people way below me in hilarious fashions. Pound for pound everything else is a waste of a slot.
Also when I say more utility, I mean more disablers and debuffs. :D
Also when I say more utility, I mean more disablers and debuffs. :D
>I am pretty happy with what my warrior mage is now.
Will you still be happy when Magic 3.0 rolls around and magic is fundamentally changed? If a GM is considering, even remotely, completely rewriting our spellbooks that should tell you that we probably won't be as happy afterwards.
>I don't see a dozen spells that are similar in our spell books
Keep in mind, this is in reference to accuracy/power of a TM spell not being based on tier, something said to happen in Magic 3.0. If you remove set the accuracy/power of every TM spell to the same level, our spellbooks become a bunch of fluff messaging that do five different things, and slightly different damage types.
>Each spell has a little something different than the next adding a little flavor to the mixture.
Other than the type of damage done, what's the difference between gar zeng and stone strike? Gar Zeng can't be cast at missile range? Removing the accuracy/power boost of ALA, what's the difference between Aether Lash and Aether Lance? Again, the type of damage? We've already had people in the past ask why we have so much redundancy, and I've even advocated redundancy so that people could play Fire Mages or Water Mages and not have to worry about being unable to train TM. That concern seems like it will be going away with Magic 3.0, however, so the redundancy is no longer needed.
Elemental Lord Opieus, Expert Warrior Mage of Elanthia
"For a bunch of radical empiricists, the Philosophers' system relies on a whole lot of faith." ~Armifer
Will you still be happy when Magic 3.0 rolls around and magic is fundamentally changed? If a GM is considering, even remotely, completely rewriting our spellbooks that should tell you that we probably won't be as happy afterwards.
>I don't see a dozen spells that are similar in our spell books
Keep in mind, this is in reference to accuracy/power of a TM spell not being based on tier, something said to happen in Magic 3.0. If you remove set the accuracy/power of every TM spell to the same level, our spellbooks become a bunch of fluff messaging that do five different things, and slightly different damage types.
>Each spell has a little something different than the next adding a little flavor to the mixture.
Other than the type of damage done, what's the difference between gar zeng and stone strike? Gar Zeng can't be cast at missile range? Removing the accuracy/power boost of ALA, what's the difference between Aether Lash and Aether Lance? Again, the type of damage? We've already had people in the past ask why we have so much redundancy, and I've even advocated redundancy so that people could play Fire Mages or Water Mages and not have to worry about being unable to train TM. That concern seems like it will be going away with Magic 3.0, however, so the redundancy is no longer needed.
Elemental Lord Opieus, Expert Warrior Mage of Elanthia
"For a bunch of radical empiricists, the Philosophers' system relies on a whole lot of faith." ~Armifer
During recent events with some war mammoths I actually found AEL to be a more effective spell than other type damage spells against war mammoths. The other types were often deflected by their armor. Having different damage type spells is vital for situational success. That being said I don't believe we need several slice, impact, or puncture spells, but some of them are situational as well. Some spells are less effective or unable to be used in certain locations. It could be bad not have that 'back up' element type to be ready for any situation.
I am in no way advocating getting rid of different damage types. If you read the thing I posted on the off chance they overhaul oour spellbooks, I suggested the element you align to determines the type of damage. Further, additional spell slots would add specific damage to any given spell, except combos like fire and cold.
I really don't expect it to change drastically from how it is now.
Elemental Lord Opieus, Expert Warrior Mage of Elanthia
"For a bunch of radical empiricists, the Philosophers' system relies on a whole lot of faith." ~Armifer
I really don't expect it to change drastically from how it is now.
Elemental Lord Opieus, Expert Warrior Mage of Elanthia
"For a bunch of radical empiricists, the Philosophers' system relies on a whole lot of faith." ~Armifer
Type of damage will still be important enough to warrant its own spell. Like you, I do hope to play in a DragonRealms where there's some tactical signifiance to lighting up a zombie versus shooting lightning bolts at it.
Generally I'd like to tighten the damage types each spell has. While there's a certain logic to how it's done now, a spell that does Fire + Cold + Lightning + Impact damage all at once pretty much negates the entire purpose of the system (and yes, we have spells like that in DR).
I need to wait a tiny bit longer to see how damage resistance models play out in Combat 3.0 before I make a serious stab at final TM numbers, though.
-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
Generally I'd like to tighten the damage types each spell has. While there's a certain logic to how it's done now, a spell that does Fire + Cold + Lightning + Impact damage all at once pretty much negates the entire purpose of the system (and yes, we have spells like that in DR).
I need to wait a tiny bit longer to see how damage resistance models play out in Combat 3.0 before I make a serious stab at final TM numbers, though.
-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
