>>2. Part of the problem with DC isn't that it doesn't deal damage (it does, and for decent mana) but that it does it at such a slow and meandering pace . . .

Bah, meant MD here. DC is great.

>Not every spell needs a sorcerer lore tie in. our lores are so specialized by definition it often doesn't make much sense and it seems as if you're just bolting on a feature.

I agree. I kind of threw it in there as a desperate attempt to get SOMETHING for this spell. I have a feeling we might see the "1x in both controls is standard training for a sorcerer, so we will not use them to enhance a spell" response which has been seen in the past. I seem to recall something like that for 740, when it was pointed out that the formula for success was identical to Wizard gate, except in place of Elemental mana control was the COMBINED Elemental/Spirit mana controls, because it was assumed to be standard. I guess I'm afraid that any improvement which does not REQUIRE a training plan change (2x a single control, 1x Spirit Lores, etc) won't be approved, since its basically a freebie. I think my point is that MD needs a freebie.

Did a little experimenting this evening, while I hunted. I deliberately ensured I was in a safe room, and 706'd moulis and dhu goleras, so that I could stance off/free hand channel the spell. EVERY cast of that 300 or so was double open handed and fully offensive. I recorded every hit which did a crit rank higher than rank 4. Out of around 300 casts, I got:

Rank 5 left leg, 201 endroll, d100 of 91
Rank 5 back, 201 endroll, d100 of 91
Rank 6 chest, 205 endroll, d100 of 92
Rank 6 chest, 216 endroll, d100 of 97 with Arcane Focus providing +10 CS
Rank 7 right leg, 225 endroll, d100 of 96 with Arcane Focus providing +10 CS
Rank 6 neck(Crit kill!), 236 endroll, d100 of 98 with Arcane Focus providing +10 CS

That rank 6 neck crit kill was the first vaguely like level crit kill I've seen in at least 15 levels, quite possibly more. The fact that it was on an underlevel moulis (I'm guessing level 73) from a level 78 sorcerer, getting a 98 d100, using Arcane Focus, with a 236 endroll, with nothing in either hand and fully offensive . . . well, thats pretty embarrassing. But hey, at least I've seen it happen again!

Also, thought this was amusing. Empty hands and full offensive:

You channel at a moulis.
CS: +390 - TD: +317 + CvA: +25 + d100: +82 == +180
Warding failed!
A most painful blow.
... 15 points of damage!
Veins bulge on forehead, giving the moulis a mild headache.
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.
Roundtime: 3 sec.

Thats right folks! Sorcerers, giving you a mild headache with a 180 endroll, fully offensive/empty hands! Fear us! We can be mildly irritating!

I'll start by saying I really appreciate the length of the response you have provided. It certainly provides some insight into the situation.

>If you read the description of the spell, Boneshatter (1106) is more powerful against lower level targets. This was done because Empaths don't have any damage dealing spells of 2 to 5 mana cost, which is an extremely important mana cost range, and is where the "bread and butter" spells for pures usually lie until around level 60. Boneshatter is not a good contender for comparison to 702, but would be better used to compare to Disintegrate (705). It should also be noted that we consider Boneshatter to still be "too good" for higher level Empaths, as they're still choosing Boneshatter over Wither (1115) almost exclusively. There's a lot to be said about that, but I won't do it here.

You say its more powerful against lower level targets . . . by this, do you mean across the board low level targets period, or "in comparison to the caster"? Because in this scenario, the person was level 7, casting (no channeling) on lesser burrow orcs, who are also 7. I see there is a TD pushdown for targets under level 35, which accounts for her ability to even HIT them, but I think I'd like to point out that endroll is not counting for much in EITHER spell . . . I was seeing huge crit kills with endrolls in the 130 range, while MD is failing utterly to get crit kills even in the 200 endroll range. As I posted before, the only like-level crit kill with MD I have seen within the last 15 levels or so was dual-open handed/stance off, channeled, with a 98 d100, on a target 5 levels below me, with Arcane Focus on. I cannot even approach 236 endrolls on a regular basis . . . I'm lucky to hit 200. What I'm seeing is that Boneshatter has a high crit rate with low end rolls, and MD has very little crit rate under 200 endrolls. I get that you are comparing Boneshatter to Disintegrate, however, and so I will compare those instead.

Boneshatter is a multi-wound cycle, moderate damage inducing spell with great crit potential, even at low endrolls. It can be trained for to increase crit thresholds (more kills, longer stuns, more severe wounds) with MMC, and you can train to improve its autokill potential with a Lore that applies to all 4 of the Empath circles attack spells (talk about bang for your buck). Its most significant limitation is the inability to hit bone-less targets, but does have a TD pushdown on targets below level 35. It gains the full channel potential. The next CS/AS based attack spell in its primary circle is 1110, 4 levels above it.

Disintegrate is a single-wound, dual-damage cycle spell with fairly high damage dealing potential, primarily dependent upon endroll. If the target is stunned or non-corporeal, it recieves a third damage cycle with no wound (my logs show damage as low as 5 on a 168 endroll, and as high as 56 on a 203 endroll, all open-hand/offensive channel), though a phased non-corp target LOSES this bonus damage. The highest damage I ever did was a total of 222 damage with a 235 endroll, fully channeled (not too shabby, but totally outside my normal warding range). My records show the lowest crit-kill I ever recieved (I used to record impressive casts of the spell because its messaging was cool) was on a 220 endroll, though I am sure it can do so at lower endrolls as well. Its power cannot be trained for in any way other than simply warding better. It gains the full channel potential. The next CS/AS based attack spell in its primary circle is 711, 6 levels above it, and is incapable of crit kills. The next crit-capable spell is 713, 8 levels above it.

>Maintaining the same mana:damage ratio is not a tenable design. 702 is the most efficient crit spell that Sorcerers possess. More damaging spells must be less mana efficient because of the enormous benefit of time savings. As creatures get more and more dangerous as you level, we intend for you to switch to higher mana cost, more front-loaded attack spells to deal with them.

First, calling 702 a crit spell is debatable. Efficient, yes. But its chance for crits is so low as to be functionally non-existant like-level, in my experience. That said, I get this. While in my mind, I loved the idea of hitting for a full additional MD cycle for double mana, I do realize thats not realistic. That said, I think there is still potential in my suggestion, at a reduced rate, which I made a suggestion of: For instance, 1.75x damage for 2x mana, 2.25x for 3x mana, etc. Disintegrate is so equally poor that I would use a 2.25x MD for 6 mana than a 5 mana cast of Disintegrate.

Furthermore, I want to ask WHAT front-loaded attack spell? Disintegrate is little better. 710 is a joke in any maneuver based hunting ground, and not as effective as advertised. Pain is great, but it is NOT front-loaded damage . . . its MD 2.0 with RT induction. Balefire is what it is, and I am not qualified to address it at this time. We end up at Torment and DC . . . Torment being incredibly dangerous (and still not quite front loaded) and DC being HIGH end mana cost, and only viable against pures and semis. So its a jump from 2 mana to 18/19 mana, with significant downsides to each. Oh, and 720, which destroys loot and is a huge mana sink. We don't HAVE a middle range attack spell . . . its MD or Torment/DC. You mention the 2-5 mana range being bread and butter until about level 60, and I would agree.

But the spells we fill this slot with are not comparable to those of the other pures. Boneshatter is exceptionally more powerful than Disintegrate, in crit rate and wound infliction (plus lore training), Smite is a better MD (your notes on the anecdotal nature of that thread taken into consideration), even if only due to auto-kill rate. If MD had even a 3% chance of insta-kill, I would see a MASSIVE improvement to my hunting, where I cast MD 4-7 times per target, in DC doesn't kill them. Rewind back 10 levels, and I couldn't afford DC ever, and it was MD all day, erry day. I will again leave Balefire out of this discussion, because I am "training" to use it, and have not yet incorporated it into my hunting plan, but the jump in mana is still 2/5 to 13. That said, access to low mana bolts is something we DON'T have (Empaths debatably so as well). The time I spent hunting Veabas/Lizards was lengthy, (14-26), and my options were severely limited by my poor warding ability. But man, I would have those lucky MD hits that stunned for 4 rounds and proned the target . . . but how do I take advantage of it? I had no way to do so. A cleric or wizard would use that SEVERE DS penalty and go to town with a bolt. I had to keep warding, and low and behold, 5 failed wardings later, the lizard is back up and ready for more.

I think despite all of our offensive spells (of which I count 16), you would assume we had a pretty good coverage of every level, but I disagree. Of those spells, three (701, 710, 716) take a phenomenally long time to deal significant damage, and 718 is not far behind. Six of them are basically disablers only (703, 706, 708, 709, 715, 717), with 708 severely limited by endroll and 717 gaining a killing ability if you are 20 levels over target or so. That leaves 702, 705, 711, 713, 718, and 719. 702-711 basically (or literally) can't crit kill things, 718 requires CONTINUED warding rolls or face deadly backlash, 719 is worthless against squares, leaving Balefire as the sole survivor, but as a 13 mana spell, is just not viable at low levels. Basically, what spell do we have under 713/719 that we can walk into a room, incur 3-9 seconds of cast/hard rt, and kill our target? Clerics, Empaths, and Wizards all have them. The other classes swing, and if they aren't ambushing, will take the target down and finish them with the second or third hit anyway. As much as it isn't what I'm looking for, the idea of a 705 bolt is looking more and more appealing . . . and I am not trained for bolting.

>Also, Sorcerers are already getting a "more powerful" version of 702 as they level, simply because their warding margins (generally) increase as they level up.

Unfortunately, I'm not seeing a significant improvement to 702 with higher endrolls. I mean, with REALLY high endrolls, sure, but the only improvement I'm seeing there is that I can actually ward my target more often. All other pures also get this improvement, plus lore bonuses (DF boost on bolts, Lores for warding).

>All damage spells which use CHANNEL bonuses have it implemented in the exact same manner. The main reason why 302 can kill more often is the auto-death chance from lore, as its frequency increases with warding margin, and CHANNELing is just an effective bonus to warding margin.

Fair enough. I just don't want to see some great new improvement to MD which only occurs in stance off/dual-hand channel. Thats why I mentioned it.

I'm not trying to just say you are wrong on all counts or something, because you have shared a lot of information that I think puts things into perspective, and I'm glad you see a need for MD to have a training benefit (that you would consider Demonology makes me, as a Demonologist, even happier), but I think the issue is more severe than it might seem at first glance. Either way, thank you for your response.

>That thread about Smite/Bane (302) was mostly anecdotal and very far from any numbers that should be used for comparison's sake. 702 is actually very close to Smite/Bane (302) in crit ability - 302's crits were modeled after 702 in the design process. 302 does get two aspects from training that 702 doesn't, however, the instant death rate (which caps out around 9%, but only approaches that for extremely high endrolls and lore training) and the infusions. "Mana" infusions were never fully completed design-wise with 302 and in their current state are just the occasional (based on Religion lore) burst of 10 or 20 extra concussion damage for no increased mana cost. They should probably be considered done, and no longer called "mana" infusions. One should also note that 302 does half damage and crit level against the "other" target type (living for Smite and undead for Bane) at twice the mana cost.

Found another important thing to add on Krakiipedia, a saved post from GM Estild:

>I am unclear on the meaning of this statement. What non-bolt attacks? Weapons? Or do you mean that damage from CS based attack spells is increased if the target is stunned? I don't recall ever seeing that before. - THROGG

>Bane/Smite (302), Fervent Reproach (312), Divine Fury (317), and Bone Shatter (1106) have had this benefit since the conversion to GemStone IV. GameMaster Uliq announced it before the migration. - GameMaster Estild, Cleric/Empath Team

Now, this changes little, since 705 ALSO recieves a bonus on stunned targets, but thats a third area where Smite/Bane outperform Mana Disruption. Autokill rate, maxing out at 9% in extraordinary circumstances (enhanced by lore), a "free" mana infusion system which costs no extra mana (enhanced by lore), and increased damage in a non-specific form (extra damage, ala 705? Increased crit modifier?) which 702 does not have. The downside of Smite/Bane is reduced efficacy against "other" target types, though autokills are still possible.

Also, this negates one of the handful of advantages 705 had listed over 1106, further improving 1106's status . . . that said, this was a 6 year old post, and I am aware Boneshatter and Smite/Bane have been changed, so correct me if this is no longer true.

>>You say its more powerful against lower level targets . . . by this, do you mean across the board low level targets period, or "in comparison to the caster"?

Absolute low level targets, not relatively low level. The bonus is specifically referring to the TD pushdown, which not only makes it easier to hit the target, but when it hits, the warding margin is higher so it's more powerful. This brings to mind my frustrations during the design process for spells that we don't have independent checks for hitting and degree of success like many other games.

>>First, calling 702 a crit spell is debatable.

702 should be the staple spell until around level 30-35 and then Disintegrate should take over. Note that I'm saying "should;" I realize this isn't the actual practice right now because Disintegrate isn't as capable as it was originally envisioned it would be. In that level range, 702 functions extremely well as a crit kill.

>>Furthermore, I want to ask WHAT front-loaded attack spell? Disintegrate is little better.

719. However, 705 should also fall in that category, which it could with a little tweaking. Pain is also a guaranteed 3 shot kill with lore, which isn't bad.

>>I could easily pull up logs from over the years showing 302 approaching 719 like levels of damage. Anecdotal, maybe? But where are the anecdotes for MD then?

I imagine a big part of it is the fact that 702's bonus concussion damage is hidden, which makes the output of the spell relatively underwhelming.

>>And shouldn't MD be MORE powerful than 302 anyways? Not even equal, but more? Because sorcerers are more magical than clerics, which is a statement of fact echoed by multiple GMs over the past 18 years or so. I think it has often just been lip service, but it has been said, and used as the justification for the cleric's vastly lower physical training costs.

No. Clerics have been stated as being more physical, but not less magical. At least not since GemStone IV. The reduced cost for their physical skills is a benefit of the class, but in the long run, it mostly just provides more combat style options. Many Clerics train strictly in the magical skills, and those that do are getting roughly the same return that Wizards, Sorcerers and Empaths do.

While Clerics have more physical combat style options than other pures, they have less options for targets with their spells. Almost all the 300s attack spells consider the Cleric's alignment in some way. This dramatically reduces the number of targets they are "good" against. While most attack spells have some component differentiation between types of targets, no other pure profession has such a limitation painted with as wide a stroke. So the strength that Sorcerers are intended to have over Clerics is not in how much stronger any one spell is, but instead how many more magical tools they are able to use. This clearly isn't exactly true in practice because of the age of the Sorcerer circle in comparison the Cleric circle, but steps have been taken in the right direction, including Balefire (713).

GameMaster Oscuro

>Pain is also a guaranteed 3 shot kill with lore, which isn't bad.

No it isn't, it is a guaranteed 3 shot kill with lore and a significant warding margin, which isn't commonly had. I was around 2x cap before it was "guaranteed" 3 shots for war griffins for me, assuming I don't fumble. Growing up, like level, I can't remember a single critter it was a guarantee on. And if 33 mana is your good scenario... well...

>No. Clerics have been stated as being more physical, but not less magical. At least not since GemStone IV. The reduced cost for their physical skills is a benefit of the class, but in the long run, it mostly just provides more combat style options. Many Clerics train strictly in the magical skills, and those that do are getting roughly the same return that Wizards, Sorcerers and Empaths do.

Imbalance says what?

>While Clerics have more physical combat style options than other pures, they have less options for targets with their spells. Almost all the 300s attack spells consider the Cleric's alignment in some way. This dramatically reduces the number of targets they are "good" against. While most attack spells have some component differentiation between types of targets, no other pure profession has such a limitation painted with as wide a stroke. So the strength that Sorcerers are intended to have over Clerics is not in how much stronger any one spell is, but instead how many more magical tools they are able to use. This clearly isn't exactly true in practice because of the age of the Sorcerer circle in comparison the Cleric circle, but steps have been taken in the right direction, including Balefire (713).

Ya that undead gap is a really killer... oh wait, it doesn't exist anymore. Hmmm I really can't see the weakness here. In shattered I played a cleric up to 70, in prime my highest is like 28. But still, I never noticed any sort of hunting problem, far from it, they were good hunters, and no matter what they wanted to hunt the cleric always did well. I had an empath, a wizard, and a cleric in shattered, I ran them through more or less the same hunting grounds from 0-70, cleric killing everything the empath or wizard did. Are clerics with BANE really not excellent hunters against undead? Are clerics with SMITE really not excellent hunters against the living? In my experience they certainly are, and saying that this is a weakness that balances against their vast and significant physical advantages holds no water IMO. The loss of effectiveness in those spells is minor. DC loses far more effectiveness when used against physical things. Basically, if you're using 302 against an ideal target, it hits like a 6 or 7 mana spell, and if you use 302 against the wrong target it hits like a 2 mana spell, and for this "penalty" clerics are balanced with the ability to wear heavier armor, at lower training point cost, train in physical skills at lower training point costs across the board, and of course, there is that whole fame/exp system around raising the dead... and access to a major spell circle.

And of course the whole religion system did not even exist when clerics were first given these things, so using it as an after the fact justification just makes it seem even weaker.

And it was not anecdotal in the leat,

You....do know what anecdotal means, right? Just in case, here's a link to the definition, pay attention to the third definition of it: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anecdotal?s=t

Here, I'll make it easier for you, I'll copy and paste that very definition here:

based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence.

-Taakhooshi, and Me

For the Story of Taakhooshi:
http://www.gsguide.net/index.php?title=Taakhooshi

How is this anecdotal? It is one several logs I have posted of the effectiveness of 302 in the clerical spell folder. It is not hearsay, it is fact. 2 out of 3 Ithzir died with one cast. When was the last time you saw 702 explode something's carotid arteries?

>> incant 302
You chant a reverent litany, clasping your hands while focusing upon the Bane spell...
Your spell is ready.
You channel at an Ithzir initiate.
A sickly, violet haze encompasses an Ithzir initiate.
CS: +513 - TD: +370 + CvA: +19 + d100: +97 == +259
Warding failed!
The violet haze chaotically swirls around the initiate, the tremendous force causing the victim to crumple inward upon itself!
The Ithzir initiate is hit for 45 points of damage!
... 35 points of damage!
Ferocious bolt of plasma tears through the Ithzir initiate's eye and fries the brain!
The Ithzir initiate is stunned!
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.
Roundtime: 3 sec.
> incant 302
You chant a reverent litany, clasping your hands while focusing upon the Bane spell...
Your spell is ready.
You channel at an Ithzir initiate.
A sickly, violet haze encompasses an Ithzir initiate.
CS: +513 - TD: +370 + CvA: +19 + d100: +63 == +225
Warding failed!
The violet haze chaotically swirls around the initiate, the tremendous force causing the victim to crumple inward upon itself!
The Ithzir initiate is hit for 45 points of damage!
... 40 points of damage!
The Ithzir initiate's leg is consumed in an intense field of plasma reducing it to ash!
An Ithzir initiate falls to the ground grasping his mangled right leg!
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.
Roundtime: 3 sec.
> incant 302
You chant a reverent litany, clasping your hands while focusing upon the Bane spell...
Your spell is ready.
You channel at an Ithzir initiate.
A sickly, violet haze encompasses an Ithzir initiate.
CS: +513 - TD: +370 + CvA: +19 + d100: +3 == +165
Warding failed!
The violet haze violently swirls around the initiate, scorching the skin of an Ithzir initiate.
The Ithzir initiate is hit for 45 points of damage!
... 35 points of damage!
Fiery blast of plasma blows the Ithzir initiate's leg into a bloody spray!
The Ithzir initiate vainly struggles to rise, then goes still.
The very powerful look leaves an Ithzir initiate.
The white light leaves an Ithzir initiate.
The opalescent aura fades from around an Ithzir initiate.
The deep blue glow leaves an Ithzir initiate.
The brilliant aura fades away from an Ithzir initiate.
An Ithzir initiate seems slightly different.
The dim aura fades from around an Ithzir initiate.
The powerful look leaves an Ithzir initiate.
The initiate's paralyzed body slackens in the grip of death.
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.
Roundtime: 3 sec.
> incant 302
You chant a reverent litany, clasping your hands while focusing upon the Bane spell...
Your spell is ready.
You channel at an Ithzir scout.
A sickly, violet haze encompasses an Ithzir scout.
CS: +513 - TD: +326 + CvA: +9 + d100: +81 == +277
Warding failed!
With a sudden burst of divine insight, you're able to amplify the power of your Bane spell!
The violet haze chaotically swirls around the scout, the tremendous force causing the victim to crumple inward upon itself!
The Ithzir scout is hit for 63 points of damage!
... 30 points of damage!
Intense blast causes the Ithzir scout's carotid arteries to explode!
The Ithzir scout falls to the ground in a crumpled heap.
The scout's paralyzed body slackens in the grip of death.
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.
Roundtime: 3 sec.
> loot
You search the Ithzir scout.
He had a gleaming steel broadsword.
You discard the scout's remaining useless equipment.
He didn't carry any silver.
He had nothing else of value.
An Ithzir scout's body shimmers slightly, then fades from view like a dissipating phantom.
> release
You feel the magic of your spell rush away from you.
> loot
You search the Ithzir initiate.
He had a twisted crystal-tipped staff.
You discard the initiate's remaining useless equipment.
He had 230 silvers on him.
You gather the remaining 230 coins.
He had nothing else of value.
An Ithzir initiate's body shimmers slightly, then fades from view like a dissipating phantom.
>
An Ithzir janissary strides in, surveying the surroundings alertly.
> incant 302
You chant a reverent litany, clasping your hands while focusing upon the Bane spell...
Your spell is ready.
You channel at an Ithzir janissary.
A sickly, violet haze encompasses an Ithzir janissary.
CS: +513 - TD: +325 + CvA: -2 + d100: +19 == +205
Warding failed!
The violet haze violently swirls around the janissary, scorching the skin of an Ithzir janissary.
The Ithzir janissary is hit for 45 points of damage!
... 25 points of damage!
A raw, red hole is drilled in the Ithzir janissary's chest by a powerful bolt!
The Ithzir janissary asks incredulously, "Hor? Kla val ptath...?" then falls, his pupil-less green eyes frozen in a dead stare.
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.
Roundtime: 3 sec.<<




The bells of Hell
go ting-a-ling-a-ling
for you but not for me

Wow. Just wow. I am rendered speechless.

-Taakhooshi, and Me

For the Story of Taakhooshi:
http://www.gsguide.net/index.php?title=Taakhooshi

>sorcerors

sorcerer

Both spellings are actually usable; sorcerer is more common. Just don't call them sorcies, that tends to make them irritable.

The bells of Hell
go ting-a-ling-a-ling
for you but not for me

>I imagine a big part of it is the fact that 702's bonus concussion damage is hidden, which makes the output of the spell relatively underwhelming.

Considering most of the hidden damage ranges are known, maybe it would help to just make it visible? Currently, we're really only in the dark on the top tier of things anyhow.

> so I realize the spell does more than meets the eye (though I've gotten laughed at a few times when it looked like I was doing 15-35 per cast while hunting with other classes)

Easy solution for that. Cast it at them until they learn there's more to it.

>My point is that the effectiveness of 702 was nerfed many years ago; it was considered overpowered, and really doesn't compare with 302 or 1106.

Yeah, back when we were force-fed a big steaming pile about everyone moving towards attrition-based combat and sorcerers being the great shiny model of awesome for the others. That worked out reeaaally swell, by the way. I'm not sure what you mean with the last bit about 702 not comparing to 302 and 1106. If you're talking damage/effectiveness and mean that 702 doesn't do what 302/1106 do, I agree, but 702 and 1106 shouldn't be compared because they're different tier spells. I think 702 should be a little more effective than 302, though.

I like using 702 on triton combatants when i'm not instant killing them with 717. sometimes i instant kill them for much less mana! :)

The Rolfard's Advocate

It makes me wonder if the problem is in some way related to my historical poor warding ability. Probably due to my build and devotion to 2xing lore, my CS has never been spectacular. That said, part of the problem I am comparing here is spells which have reasonable killing power at low endrolls, or even a insta-kill chance. MD does not.

>302... well geeze it has these mana infusions, and is supposed to cost more mana, but we've been kinda procrastinating on actually coding the cost, so we'll probably just not have there be a cost and just ignore it, but you should ignore it too, because we intended there to be a cost, and intentions are what count.

You're trying to get 702 improved, not nuke other spells, if my reading and comprehension of your initial complaint is correct. Maybe focus on 702 instead of 302 or 1106 envy would be a good thing.

Addtionally, when putting forth comparisons where you complain about an issue with another spell, if you put down the correct information, that would help. For YEARS 302 DID cost additional mana when an infusion happened. It ceased doing so relatively recently. I'm assuming (notice not stating as fact, because I'm not in the dev teams head.) that the additional mana cost was stopped until the spell could be reviewed.

>Additional rants about various other spells and issues input here.

So what exactly is it you seek with 702 and 705? It appeared to be a desire for lores to boost both spells. I couldn't quite gather the concept from your post. Please clarify?

ENN: All the news that's fit to print, and even more that isn't - Anonymous

>>Yeah, ok, sorcerers don't have the flexibility of an empath or cleric, but hey, it could be worse. You could be a warrior!

Pssh, or a bard. They may be effective, but really, who sings to kill their enemies? Pssh.

Sorcerers are supposed to have a ton of flexibility, and in some ways, we do . . . except a ton of it does things the same way. Its more like we are flexible to use 3-7 different spells to do the same thing . . . disable ONE target. Evil Eye is such a cool spell, but realistically, barring the open cast version, whats the point as compared to Mind Jolt? Why use Disease when you can Bloodburst for 1/16th the mana? We are a profession which is advertised as having "options", but the reality is most of those options are either inferior to another option, perform the same function as another option, or are entirely worthless in the first place. Unfortunately, its my personally opinion that for all our choices, there is a huge gap where these choices are sub-par. Mind Jolt (assuming the target isn't stun immune/breaks stuns) is probably the best disabler in the game, and Bloodburst is THE damage:mana spell in the world . . . if you have a half hour to spend (that said, I hunted with Bloodburst as a primary damage dealing spell until my 40s). But then there is this huge leap from these two spells until Dark Catalyst and maybe Balefire.

Also, the maneuver situation is pretty bad. Where is maneuver-Phase? What happened to that, some time back in 2006 or 7.

In case it wasn't obvious, my log of Mana Disruption (702) was no way indicative of the actual spell. Just like the logs of Bane/Smite (302) and the anecdotal statements regarding it are no way indicative of the actual spell. It was a humorous post to point out a fallacy.

GameMaster Oscuro

While I agree that Mana Disruption (702) should benefit from some kind of increase effectiveness with training (in my non-guru opinion, demonology lore) and that Disintegrate (705) is relatively lacking, I'd like to put things in perspective a little bit.

GameMaster Estild

That is not to say that spell doesn't need a review, since the standard is typically that some skill will affect most attack spells, but Mana Disruption is not a bad spell for 2 mana.

ASPEN

This whole discussion is rather moot though. It is a fact that 702 and 705 have no lore modifier, it is a fact that that is a fairly unique situation (I would call 904 a special case for a variety of obvious reasons). If they're good enough or fine, and do not need one, as the cleric/empath squad would seem to be arguing (forever minimizing sorcerer concerns, it gets old guys).

Yes, because that's exactly what we both said..."702 doesn't need a skill modifier."

GameMaster Estild

>>While I agree that Mana Disruption (702) should benefit from some kind of increase effectiveness with training (in my non-guru opinion, demonology lore) and that Disintegrate (705) is relatively lacking, I'd like to put things in perspective a little bit. - Oscuro

Entirely as an aside . . . I know that the current GM status is "teams" rather than individual Gurus, but from what I can tell, Strathspey (seemingly working on Sorcerers) has seemed to have vanished? That, combined with what appears to be a loss of GM-Naos, who was wizardly, is there currently a hole in the pure GM team, particularly in the Wizard/Sorcerer area? I can appreciate that progress does not get made when there is no one to work on things.

Addressing the point more directly, I myself have definitely noticed an agreement with the desire to incorporate lores/skills into these spells. However, at base value, do you consider them to be acceptable (assuming a sorcerer refused to train for them, for instance). Disintegrate is my more primary concern, since it seems most agree there is no reason to use it over MD.

Also, like the synchronized posting! Was that deliberate?

>>If we're victims, then you're defensive about cleric and empaths. Which, is pretty normal around here, if you ask me. You guys are the Rescue Rangers, the patrons of the two rescuing professions, and have been so outwardly for as long as you've been GMs. Even if there is no professional teams, not officially, if something looks like a duck and walks like a duck and talks like a duck. It isn't a chicken. Thats fine, we all have our biases, and it doesn't necessarily reflect poorly on you, I love web bolt, you do some good coding work.

>>So we bring up spells in other circles, spells that do have the lore modification paradigm applied to them, as examples of what we think we should have, and while you admit we have a need, it seems your primary concern is defending cleric and empath turf again, explaining why we aren't and shouldn't be any better than them, the blonde kids, because we have red hair. You downplay the powers of the professions we essentially compete with (we all hunt the same things), while trying to tell us our spells aren't as bad as we think. Even if that is not the case, that is my take away, because again, historically, you guys are the patron saints of anyone with access to the 200 circle.

We're defensive about things that make sense, and argue against those that don't. All we did was point out what parts of your arguments were well founded and which ones weren't.

It's not like I haven't done updates in the past specifically for Sorcerers, such as the arashan or completing the demon RP verb project, and it's not like I don't have intentions to do more in the future; why do you think I've been so active in this folder lately having started threads and commented on others? I have also said that Boneshatter is too good so I'm not exactly towing any Empath/Cleric company line here - we call things as we see them.

I get that you're hurt because you've frequently been left with the short end of the stick. It doesn't mean that all sticks you get are the shortest.

GameMaster Oscuro

>I get that you're hurt because you've frequently been left with the short end of the stick. It doesn't mean that all sticks you get are the shortest.

Enough with the dwarf jokes, no need to be heightist.

But really, that is sort of the issue. Where is the long stick?

Is there a single mangler skill where sorcerers have the lowest training cost, a skill every pure trains in (ie, not sorcerer lore)? No. I've famously categorized skills and shown aggregate costs and we're usually last. Sometimes we're tied, but in no category do we have the long stick.

See, I would think balance would be being worse in some areas, and better in others. Being the worst in X, but the best in Y. It doesn't seem to work out that way. Clerics and empaths get their physical and ancilliary skill bonuses and in exchange pay a measly 1 extra PTP in magical costs (spell aiming). Wizards get the cheapest magical costs, and in exchange.... are better than us in physical costs too (1 ptp in armor use). Where is the balance? Where is the long stick?

Any logical creature looking at every aspect of a profession and gameplay EXCEPT mangler costs would design the system differently, starting with sorcerers, at the very least, having the lowest cost in Arcane Symbols.

There is still the foraging bonus catastrophe. Before many current players were born it was decided to give professional bonuses to professions that needed to forage healing herbs the most, since populations were thin, healers were scare, and herb use was more needed. Rangers get a good bonus for being rangerly, clerics because they rescue, empaths because they heal, squares because they get hit more often. Wizards and sorcerers? Big penalty, because we don't get hit much, so we're don't need to forage, how intuitive was this system. Then, with the addition of foraging bounties, componentry, and alchemy, when sorcery became probably the profession with the most foraging needs, it was all changed.... nope. Any other fantasy world the magic users, who often use componentry, know herb lore, here despite a need for it, it is like we're goats trying to understand german or something. That is another short stick.

Another short stick was the lack of an AS spell, and lack of a native AS booster. Meaning we had the LOWEST AS of any pure profession (and it isn't as if we're the best now, still down in the list), making us the worst bolters and the worst at using mutant weapon paths (short stick, short stick, short stick). Finally it was fixed so while we're still not above average, we're as far behind.

The lack of lore modification is another short stick of course. The need to train in three separate lore types another short stick. The only pure profession with a lore training cost over 0/6 for a single skill a third short stick.

The aura training point penalty is another short stick, admittedly one shared with wizards. The hybrid alchemy channel penalty is another short stick, admittedly one shared with empaths. The hybrid CS penalty, after eons of complaining, was finally fixed, we don't have a long stick with CS, but at least we lost a short stick.

We're the only pure profession without an ulterior XP gain method, another short stick (yes, enchanting counts, you can level doing nothing but enchanting, there are guides showing you how, and while it doesn't produce xp as easily as raise dead or healing, it more than makes up for that in silver). I've asked repeatedly for infusing to get nominal XP, like imbedding (though imbedding has a harsh cap, thanks simmer), like foraging, like lockpicking, like loresinging. GM response (I forget which GM), "why bother?" I also asked for it post master for forging by the way, like fletching, was first told yes, then later also told why bother. But I get how messed up forging is. I must be a glutton for punishment since I picked both forging and sorcery.

We're the only pure that has such onerous restrictions placed on our "pet" spell. Yes, you have an RP reason, but you could have easily flipped a coin and came up with an RP reason that would favor us ("Populace being too scared of the antagonizing sorcerers to interfere with them, etc etc, you could come up with lots of things"). Short stick number 72.

We did have a long stick teleportation ability for a very short period of time, then everyone else got chronomages, nexus gems, voln teleporting, and premium teleporting, and I hear savants are slated for something too so.... short stick.

Scrolls? Is that our long stick? We aren't the best at reading them, wizards get that by nature of their costs being HALF ours. We're not the best at using them either, wizards get that because again, they pay 50% less for the same skill level. Infusing them? Sure, we're the best at infusing scrolls. You don't need to infuse them to use them, we have massive componentry requirements. I don't know recharge item but I use lots of magical items. You don't need to be a sorcerer to get a benefit from scrolls. If scroll infusion is our only long stick, it is a very thin one.

There is no attack method of style we're the best at. We do not have the best (or any really, I don't count evil eye for obvious reasons), mass CS spell, mass AS spell, single target CS spell, single target AS spell. We share the best knockdown spell (ewave) with 4 other professions. We're the best at wounding without killing, but there is no benefit to that. We cannot move quickly, or cast quickly, or wear thicker armor, or have less armor hinderance, or more easily obtain manuever defense, or do anything remotely related to hunting success the best.

We even get the short stick for being helpful to others. Despite scroll infusion, asks on thoughtnets for help from a sorcerer are pretty infrequent.

This is why I suggest things like changing training costs, like making demonic magic fueled balefire able to pierce antimagic protection, like giving us a 4th spell circle, like removing teleportation restrictions from 740. We need a long stick. We deserve to have something we can achieve that other pures cannot, something to set us apart. Mediocrity cannot be our specialty.

So, Oscuro, what is our long stick? What is a plan for our long stick?