Previous Thread
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
Mass limb disruption.
Please make it so
Empaths and clerics that use weapons don't wear 102 because of the AS penalty, just so you know. Cleric melee AS also isn't much better then a sorcerer is capable of, although they do get full spell AS bonus a lot sooner. Kind of off topic anyway which would lead to a rehash of points already brought up. The biggest problem with a lot of things in GS IV is that they were carried over from the GS III line of thinking, they shouldn't have and it was a mistake. Seems like we'd need them to create a GS V for things to even have a chance of being really fixed, which I really don't see happening anytime soon if ever.
>Empaths and clerics that use weapons don't wear 102 because of the AS penalty, just so you know. Cleric melee AS also isn't much better then a sorcerer is capable of, although they do get full spell AS bonus a lot sooner. Kind of off topic anyway which would lead to a rehash of points already brought up. The biggest problem with a lot of things in GS IV is that they were carried over from the GS III line of thinking, they shouldn't have and it was a mistake. Seems like we'd need them to create a GS V for things to even have a chance of being really fixed, which I really don't see happening anytime soon if ever.
what does this have to do with necro lore or sorcery development at all?
what does this have to do with necro lore or sorcery development at all?
Ehh, he just replied to the wrong thread. Its all one mishmash of hate and complaints, so I don't blame him. It was more a response to my assessment of Sorcerer melee potential.
Of course, my response is that Clerics may not have much more AS, but their training costs are much lower, and armor hindrance as well.
Of course, my response is that Clerics may not have much more AS, but their training costs are much lower, and armor hindrance as well.
>>Empaths and clerics that use weapons don't wear 102 because of the AS penalty,<<
OK, this may heve been posted erroneously here as a reply to a different thread, but since the post does exist, I will correct this misconception. It may be true for clerics, but not empaths. Empaths get such massive AS boosters, mine can hunt with a weapon even WITH 102 in effect.
The bells of Hell
go ting-a-ling-a-ling
for you but not for me
OK, this may heve been posted erroneously here as a reply to a different thread, but since the post does exist, I will correct this misconception. It may be true for clerics, but not empaths. Empaths get such massive AS boosters, mine can hunt with a weapon even WITH 102 in effect.
The bells of Hell
go ting-a-ling-a-ling
for you but not for me
Changing the title for separation of topics. Empaths are pretty ridiculous with all of their AS boosters affecting melee AS unlike any of the other pures plus their other combat and mechanical advantages. I love empaths but that needed to be changed when empaths didnt get minor mental, seriously. Not sure its even worth bringing up in this thread since it just highlights how sorcs do not have a unique approach to the play style whereas the others do...which is really the point of it all.
For example, even though they only get 5 more AS clerics have one advantage in 316 compared to the other pures since it handles multiple critters, e/b/p, and mitigates some of the AS/DS concerns. Thats all in addition to being able to train THW and CM easier than the others. Wizards have haste, even more AS and crowd control and EMpaths get waaaay too much AS for a pure but without any good crowd control. Sorcerers have great disablers but I can definitely see the gap. They had a chance to throw sorcs a bone with curse of the star, but I guess that only helps bolt AS. Mutant paths aren't supported so it may be a useless argument anyway but the point stands that sorcerers need something unique or a 'long stick' as its been called.
Also, are Empaths really running around with 102 up and still swinging?
>I love empaths but that needed to be changed when empaths didnt get minor mental, seriously.
I don't really want to see the huge AS potential of empaths be nerfed. I feel like its "their" way of doing melee. Clerics get reduced cost, sanctification for undead, and can self-bless. Empaths get regeneration and big AS boosters. Wizards get haste. If anything, I think Clerics could survive a bit more AS to even out with the other two (Attacking 2-5 times in the same 5 seconds counts for way more than AS in my mind).
I just wish Sorcerers had something else too.
>Mutant paths aren't supported so it may be a useless argument anyway but the point stands that sorcerers need something unique or a 'long stick' as its been called.
I don't believe that mutant paths aren't supported, otherwise Empaths wouldn't get like +100 physical AS. They could have just kept it to bolt AS if they wanted to steer people clear of swinging. Maybe they aren't considered optimal or a priority, but why would Bravery/Heroism/Elemental Targetting/Intensity/Emp Focus/Benediction exist if their wasn't some intention of the possibility of AS? Strength is just about the ONLY exception to that rule, since its highly utility/other cast, but even it has a self-cast lore bonus increasing swing AS. Perhaps some of these are just a hold-over from a time before Runestaves, though I'm pretty sure some of the Empath spells aren't.
As far as disablers, we don't really have the best disablers, we just have a ton of them. Mind Jolt is exceptional for actually locking down a target for a long duration, but stun is a poor status effect in terms of DS reduction. Web is far superior, and all three except Wizards have that. Bind, similarly. Mind Jolt = best stunner. Limb Disruption = Best limb remover. Quake/Ewave = Proning. Curse/Nightmare = Pervasive RT induction/reduction. Evil Eye MAYBE, since it actually has that fear effect, but that requires a specific endroll bracket, with the others inflicting entirely unwanted side effects. For all these "options", Web is probably just better anyway for DS-dropping to swing at. Don't get me wrong, we have a ton of options here, but "many" does not equal "good", and this is an area in which we might as well use Web.
I don't really want to see the huge AS potential of empaths be nerfed. I feel like its "their" way of doing melee. Clerics get reduced cost, sanctification for undead, and can self-bless. Empaths get regeneration and big AS boosters. Wizards get haste. If anything, I think Clerics could survive a bit more AS to even out with the other two (Attacking 2-5 times in the same 5 seconds counts for way more than AS in my mind).
I just wish Sorcerers had something else too.
>Mutant paths aren't supported so it may be a useless argument anyway but the point stands that sorcerers need something unique or a 'long stick' as its been called.
I don't believe that mutant paths aren't supported, otherwise Empaths wouldn't get like +100 physical AS. They could have just kept it to bolt AS if they wanted to steer people clear of swinging. Maybe they aren't considered optimal or a priority, but why would Bravery/Heroism/Elemental Targetting/Intensity/Emp Focus/Benediction exist if their wasn't some intention of the possibility of AS? Strength is just about the ONLY exception to that rule, since its highly utility/other cast, but even it has a self-cast lore bonus increasing swing AS. Perhaps some of these are just a hold-over from a time before Runestaves, though I'm pretty sure some of the Empath spells aren't.
As far as disablers, we don't really have the best disablers, we just have a ton of them. Mind Jolt is exceptional for actually locking down a target for a long duration, but stun is a poor status effect in terms of DS reduction. Web is far superior, and all three except Wizards have that. Bind, similarly. Mind Jolt = best stunner. Limb Disruption = Best limb remover. Quake/Ewave = Proning. Curse/Nightmare = Pervasive RT induction/reduction. Evil Eye MAYBE, since it actually has that fear effect, but that requires a specific endroll bracket, with the others inflicting entirely unwanted side effects. For all these "options", Web is probably just better anyway for DS-dropping to swing at. Don't get me wrong, we have a ton of options here, but "many" does not equal "good", and this is an area in which we might as well use Web.
>>Also, are Empaths really running around with 102 up and still swinging?<<
My empath, level 99, is currently hunting in OTF. Spell 102 drops something like 42 off her weapon AS, but with a white crystal working, she still swings at 410 (with a 7x weapon, of course). That's without using society abilities. With symbol of courage running it would be 436. She also picked up 30 ranks of MOC, giving her a double tap m-strike; this however, cost a ton of TPs.
Also note that weapons aren't the most safe or efficient way of killing a foe; it's more for purposes of style. Casting boneshatter from guarded is safer. So, no reason for empath/cleric/mage envy. Mutant paths are used more for amusement than efficiency in combat. I have changed my empath from pure to swinger 4 times so far; the pure caster path was the better hunter, since she was able to use wizard wands on critters that had no bones to shatter.
The bells of Hell
go ting-a-ling-a-ling
for you but not for me
My empath, level 99, is currently hunting in OTF. Spell 102 drops something like 42 off her weapon AS, but with a white crystal working, she still swings at 410 (with a 7x weapon, of course). That's without using society abilities. With symbol of courage running it would be 436. She also picked up 30 ranks of MOC, giving her a double tap m-strike; this however, cost a ton of TPs.
Also note that weapons aren't the most safe or efficient way of killing a foe; it's more for purposes of style. Casting boneshatter from guarded is safer. So, no reason for empath/cleric/mage envy. Mutant paths are used more for amusement than efficiency in combat. I have changed my empath from pure to swinger 4 times so far; the pure caster path was the better hunter, since she was able to use wizard wands on critters that had no bones to shatter.
The bells of Hell
go ting-a-ling-a-ling
for you but not for me
>I think Clerics could survive a bit more AS to even out with the other two (Attacking 2-5 times in the same 5 seconds counts for way more than AS in my mind).
I don't, and let me tell you why.
They're very effective against the undead because they can lead off with 301, which is precisely tailored to that style of hunting.
But that is all very off topic.
>I don't believe that mutant paths aren't supported, otherwise Empaths wouldn't get like +100 physical AS. They could have just kept it to bolt AS if they wanted to steer people clear of swinging. Maybe they aren't considered optimal or a priority, but why would Bravery/Heroism/Elemental Targetting/Intensity/Emp Focus/Benediction exist if their wasn't some intention of the possibility of AS? Strength is just about the ONLY exception to that rule, since its highly utility/other cast, but even it has a self-cast lore bonus increasing swing AS. Perhaps some of these are just a hold-over from a time before Runestaves, though I'm pretty sure some of the Empath spells aren't.
Essentially, clerics are more physical because that is how people in charge of the game 2 decades ago "saw them" likely bleeding through from Rolemaster, D&D, and other fantasy worlds where clerics are warrior priests who swing maces and fight (but those clerics never had spells like our clerics do, but whatever). Any idea of balance doesn't enter into it.
Empaths are able to swing because empaths are were able to swing. Go back to GS3, empaths had no effective attack spells. Some of them chaffed at being only healers, and would try to hunt, the only option available to them was swinging, and because they did still have the 200 circle they weren't horrible at it. Like Dhe'nar these empaths established themselves and got themselves made official where, when the 1100s were created, their hunting style was preserved, to not upset the apple cart as much as any other reason. You know how empaths were with minor mental (or maybe not, you were gone awhile).
I would posit that the answers for tomorrow are not to be found in the decisions of yesterday. This represents my view of sorcery today.
TLDR Summary; It doesn't matter how we got here, or how we build our case for what went before -- the present state is that sorcery lacks direction. Putting a few guidelines in place (nod to history, etc.) and then focusing a concerted effort on the direction for sorcery will go a lot further than suggestions about gaps in select areas.
"Our search for a hero begins with something every hero requires; a villain." Not really terribly relevant in today's concept of the game -- but it could be!
In order to provide direction for the sorcery profession, there are a few guidelines that we should establish.
0) Sorcery as presently implemented works, characters can advance at all levels, and they do alright. But the profession leaves sorcerer players unfulfilled, which should be a primary concern of game design.
1) Sorcery is supposed to be a devastatingly powerful mix of elemental and spiritual magics.
2) In our world, 'powerful' generally lives in 3 to 5 second increments.
3) Sorcery's ability to be seen as 'powerful' should be measured in a sorcerer's ability to take a foe out in those 3 to 5 seconds. This means completely. Not disabled, not stunned, not scared away -- destroyed utterly and irrevocably, body and soul (we'll leave the mind out of this for the moment. :)
4) Of all the professions available, the sorcery profession should be the most feared in a one-on-one scenario. The destruction the sorcerer should wield should be absolute and superior to all other professions (meaning, if another profession can be projected to survive 99.5% of solo random encounters, the sorcerer should be projected to survive 99.9% of solo random encounters.)
5) Of all the professions available, the sorcery profession should not be the weakest in multi-on-one and non-combat scenarios. Who should be will be left to the imagination. . .
6) Of all the professions available, the sorcery profession should be the least 'adapted' to one-on-multi or multi-on-multi scenarios (group hunting). Not less adapted, not unadapted, just least.
7) Of all the professions available, the sorcery profession has the greatest depth of achievement in game lore -- great foes of the lands have largely been sorcerous. These foes had the ability to use sorcery to command armies.
8) All players crave choice to build power -- and no player enjoys portraying a profession that has to go through significant, undue challenge that no other profession must face.
So, what to do? Provide direction for the sorcery profession.
Increase the power of the profession in the one-on-one scenario (guidelines 0 through 4). These changes don't need to be sweeping (guideline 0), but they are important to profession enjoyment (guideline 1). Power means taking a foe completely out (guidelines 2 and 3), making the sorcerer the most feared opponent to run across (guideline 4).
Well-prepared sorcerers shouldn't suffer the most in non-combat / multi-opponent combat scenarios (guideline 5). A matrix for profession weakness, in general, should be provided for discerning players, and while it is expected that each profession will have some weakness, no one profession should be last in a 'majority' of cases. Here, majority should be interpreted by perception -- and if the perception is inaccurate, it should be addressed directly by sharing information.
Sorcery isn't a 'group fest' profession. While some tolerance should be given to sorcerers wanting to join together either in cabals (same profession) or in groups (multiple professions), the sorcerer should not be viewed / judged a 'utility' profession. It exists to destroy, and the preponderance of spells available should be destructive, not disabling or torturous. Drop / combine some of the disabler spells (guideline 6) to create room for 'providing direction' for the profession.
Sorcery began a path of 'building armies' via the Animate capabilities. But, an army of one isn't an army, despite what propaganda may say otherwise. A well-prepared sorcerer should include the concept of multiple 'do-ers', inclusive of a demon, and several animates (guideline 7). As a potential late-to-end-game goal, sorcery should allow for the concept of 'small armies' (perhaps 7 or so?) at the command of the sorcerer wrecking devastation and dismay -- potentially even against a township.
However, Animate capabilities are too heavily burdened to be sustainable in such a scenario (guideline 8). This should be directly addressed, with capabilities to keep animates around and functioning available in the mid-game range, and to scale in numbers and effectiveness in the late-to-end-game scenarios.
The sorcery profession base lists (Minor Elemental, Minor Spiritual, Sorcery) have challenges internal even to the lists themselves (more guideline 8). The sorcery profession is the only pure spell-casting profession not to have access to a Major-type spell list. Solve this by blending Minor Elemental and Minor Spiritual into a Minor Sorcery list, and Major Elemental and Major Spiritual into a Major Sorcery list (back to guideline 1). Focus on powerful (3 to 5 second) displays of destruction in the one-on-one random encounter scenarios, without granting an overwhelming multi-on-one scenario advantage for the profession.
In my view, the direction, then, for sorcery is straight-forward. The most destructively powerful one-on-one profession in the game, bar none. Easing restrictions imposed mechanically to open up the avenue for commanding sorcerous armies to visit broad swaths of devastation. Truing up the spell list mechanics to grant the most destructively powerful one-on-one profession in the game a Major-type list as well as the Minor and Profession lists all other professions enjoy. Retain some of the challenges that the sorcery profession has in the one-on-multi (multiple opponent) area, while allowing for really powerful sorcerers to compensate by having the means to realize multi-on-multi (player directed group) animate capabilities.
There are proffered suggestions that fit within this framework (additive), and other suggestions that violate the guidelines proposed (detractive, especially to other profession plans). Agree to / adjust the guidelines and provide the profession the direction it needs, bringing it to the same status now enjoyed by every other profession in the game.
Then see how things change.
Doug
TLDR Summary; It doesn't matter how we got here, or how we build our case for what went before -- the present state is that sorcery lacks direction. Putting a few guidelines in place (nod to history, etc.) and then focusing a concerted effort on the direction for sorcery will go a lot further than suggestions about gaps in select areas.
"Our search for a hero begins with something every hero requires; a villain." Not really terribly relevant in today's concept of the game -- but it could be!
In order to provide direction for the sorcery profession, there are a few guidelines that we should establish.
0) Sorcery as presently implemented works, characters can advance at all levels, and they do alright. But the profession leaves sorcerer players unfulfilled, which should be a primary concern of game design.
1) Sorcery is supposed to be a devastatingly powerful mix of elemental and spiritual magics.
2) In our world, 'powerful' generally lives in 3 to 5 second increments.
3) Sorcery's ability to be seen as 'powerful' should be measured in a sorcerer's ability to take a foe out in those 3 to 5 seconds. This means completely. Not disabled, not stunned, not scared away -- destroyed utterly and irrevocably, body and soul (we'll leave the mind out of this for the moment. :)
4) Of all the professions available, the sorcery profession should be the most feared in a one-on-one scenario. The destruction the sorcerer should wield should be absolute and superior to all other professions (meaning, if another profession can be projected to survive 99.5% of solo random encounters, the sorcerer should be projected to survive 99.9% of solo random encounters.)
5) Of all the professions available, the sorcery profession should not be the weakest in multi-on-one and non-combat scenarios. Who should be will be left to the imagination. . .
6) Of all the professions available, the sorcery profession should be the least 'adapted' to one-on-multi or multi-on-multi scenarios (group hunting). Not less adapted, not unadapted, just least.
7) Of all the professions available, the sorcery profession has the greatest depth of achievement in game lore -- great foes of the lands have largely been sorcerous. These foes had the ability to use sorcery to command armies.
8) All players crave choice to build power -- and no player enjoys portraying a profession that has to go through significant, undue challenge that no other profession must face.
So, what to do? Provide direction for the sorcery profession.
Increase the power of the profession in the one-on-one scenario (guidelines 0 through 4). These changes don't need to be sweeping (guideline 0), but they are important to profession enjoyment (guideline 1). Power means taking a foe completely out (guidelines 2 and 3), making the sorcerer the most feared opponent to run across (guideline 4).
Well-prepared sorcerers shouldn't suffer the most in non-combat / multi-opponent combat scenarios (guideline 5). A matrix for profession weakness, in general, should be provided for discerning players, and while it is expected that each profession will have some weakness, no one profession should be last in a 'majority' of cases. Here, majority should be interpreted by perception -- and if the perception is inaccurate, it should be addressed directly by sharing information.
Sorcery isn't a 'group fest' profession. While some tolerance should be given to sorcerers wanting to join together either in cabals (same profession) or in groups (multiple professions), the sorcerer should not be viewed / judged a 'utility' profession. It exists to destroy, and the preponderance of spells available should be destructive, not disabling or torturous. Drop / combine some of the disabler spells (guideline 6) to create room for 'providing direction' for the profession.
Sorcery began a path of 'building armies' via the Animate capabilities. But, an army of one isn't an army, despite what propaganda may say otherwise. A well-prepared sorcerer should include the concept of multiple 'do-ers', inclusive of a demon, and several animates (guideline 7). As a potential late-to-end-game goal, sorcery should allow for the concept of 'small armies' (perhaps 7 or so?) at the command of the sorcerer wrecking devastation and dismay -- potentially even against a township.
However, Animate capabilities are too heavily burdened to be sustainable in such a scenario (guideline 8). This should be directly addressed, with capabilities to keep animates around and functioning available in the mid-game range, and to scale in numbers and effectiveness in the late-to-end-game scenarios.
The sorcery profession base lists (Minor Elemental, Minor Spiritual, Sorcery) have challenges internal even to the lists themselves (more guideline 8). The sorcery profession is the only pure spell-casting profession not to have access to a Major-type spell list. Solve this by blending Minor Elemental and Minor Spiritual into a Minor Sorcery list, and Major Elemental and Major Spiritual into a Major Sorcery list (back to guideline 1). Focus on powerful (3 to 5 second) displays of destruction in the one-on-one random encounter scenarios, without granting an overwhelming multi-on-one scenario advantage for the profession.
In my view, the direction, then, for sorcery is straight-forward. The most destructively powerful one-on-one profession in the game, bar none. Easing restrictions imposed mechanically to open up the avenue for commanding sorcerous armies to visit broad swaths of devastation. Truing up the spell list mechanics to grant the most destructively powerful one-on-one profession in the game a Major-type list as well as the Minor and Profession lists all other professions enjoy. Retain some of the challenges that the sorcery profession has in the one-on-multi (multiple opponent) area, while allowing for really powerful sorcerers to compensate by having the means to realize multi-on-multi (player directed group) animate capabilities.
There are proffered suggestions that fit within this framework (additive), and other suggestions that violate the guidelines proposed (detractive, especially to other profession plans). Agree to / adjust the guidelines and provide the profession the direction it needs, bringing it to the same status now enjoyed by every other profession in the game.
Then see how things change.
Doug
So if I am to understand, the end result of this (impressive and intimidating) suggestion is:
Sorcerers lose Minor Elemental and Minor Spiritual.
Sorcerers proceed to gain two unique circles:
1. Minor Sorcerer, which is comprised of a choice pick of spells from the Minor Elemental and Minor Spiritual lists.
2. Major Sorcerer, which is comprised of a choice pick of spells from the MAJOR Elemental and Major Spiritual lists.
The intention of this is to offset the lack of a "major circle", by allowing us to tap into Major level spells, without losing our hybrid status.
This is an even more dramatic change than adding in the Minor Mental circle. And in our gaining of Major spells, I'm sure that someone will be sad about the casualities lost in our minor spell circles. Say, for instance, we may gain something like Thurfel's Ward instead of Lockpick Enhancement, and a fledgling smith gets peeved, which I could understand. One thing I've grown to love about sorcery is that it has access to a bunch of random useful things . . . not things that make it STRONG, persay, but about a dozen minor utility spells that just give little bonuses. Spending years with them, I've come to rely on them, and losing them for other spells might be a hard transition.
I do agree that some work can be done in our own spell circle to achieve the same ends. The only thing that saddens me is that we have these awesome spells . . . spells that major sorcery what it IS, yet aren't all that good. I'm afraid that any major restructing would lose these spells (Sorcery Base) spells, I mean, rather than see them improved.
Sorcerers lose Minor Elemental and Minor Spiritual.
Sorcerers proceed to gain two unique circles:
1. Minor Sorcerer, which is comprised of a choice pick of spells from the Minor Elemental and Minor Spiritual lists.
2. Major Sorcerer, which is comprised of a choice pick of spells from the MAJOR Elemental and Major Spiritual lists.
The intention of this is to offset the lack of a "major circle", by allowing us to tap into Major level spells, without losing our hybrid status.
This is an even more dramatic change than adding in the Minor Mental circle. And in our gaining of Major spells, I'm sure that someone will be sad about the casualities lost in our minor spell circles. Say, for instance, we may gain something like Thurfel's Ward instead of Lockpick Enhancement, and a fledgling smith gets peeved, which I could understand. One thing I've grown to love about sorcery is that it has access to a bunch of random useful things . . . not things that make it STRONG, persay, but about a dozen minor utility spells that just give little bonuses. Spending years with them, I've come to rely on them, and losing them for other spells might be a hard transition.
I do agree that some work can be done in our own spell circle to achieve the same ends. The only thing that saddens me is that we have these awesome spells . . . spells that major sorcery what it IS, yet aren't all that good. I'm afraid that any major restructing would lose these spells (Sorcery Base) spells, I mean, rather than see them improved.
TLDR Summary: Thanks for the feedback! Agree with the points, and think that any suggestion made is the stronger for challenging it and talking about the weaknesses. Ultimately, it's about the profession direction, not any single proffered solution, in my view.
Excellent points. I have a couple of further thoughts to share, but I don't believe I can fully address some of the concerns listed.
On the matter of adjustments to the sorcery profession list -- I fully support the concept of really increasing this list's power. I appreciate that there is a belief that the list can be successfully modified to create room for increasing the profession's direction. I would certainly aspire to exactly that -- it's an easier planning path. But, I'm sort of reserved, at the same time. In terms of effort, I think dropping / combining and tweaking up are a bit less effort than a revamp. If the profession players / gurus / game leadership agreed and drove to this -- utopia!
To put it in perspective, I'm advocating transformational change to the sorcery profession in terms of alignment (devastation) and profession direction, not an incremental one. Call it a swing for the fence. :) But I am certainly supportive of tailoring the swing for a triple or even a double, if it brings some comfort yet defines the profession direction.
On the matter of combining the lists: that was meant to showcase how radical an idea may be that is net additive to sorcery without detracting one bit from other professions and how it could be characterized by the concept of guidelines for the profession. It wasn't intended to be the 'end result'. The direction for the profession is the 'end result' in my view. . . this is just one potential (although perhaps not the best) realization path for that.
On the matter of spell list selection / change -- I agree that it highly probable that this cannot be done without some perceived loss in some players' views. I would point out that the selection of 503 versus 403 is misplaced (Major combines with Major, not Minor). But the premise of the argument is valid. Which is more the likely selection (to continue the case), 403 or 103. And which is more the likely selection, 503 or 203?
I would say that the guidelines (when agreed to, not necessarily those proposed) would govern. For example -- IF we agreed that the profession was all about bringing power to bear to destroy the enemy, the choices are 103 and 503 respectively above. . . both defensive, yes. But sometimes the best offense is being able to survive long enough to cast offensively. :) The guideline suggested (not a utility profession, guideline 6) would guide those choices to that state.
Important note -- this must be contrasted against suggested guideline 5 (not the weakest consistently in all areas).
Still, I absolutely agree with the observations, and appreciate that feedback. Any suggestion can only be made stronger by challenging it, pointing out weaknesses and addressing those weaknesses. And we've listed three:
1) Forced 'choice' against existing capabilities can still feel like a 'sharp stick' rather than a 'long pole'.
2) Restructuring the profession base spell list may potentially lead to losses to get gains.
3) Transformational change may be a bit too risky, and so it may be prudent to back off just a bit to transitional change (but still to make it better than incremental improvement?)
On matters of the mind (Minor Mental). I think V was the first player to suggest this course, and I still support it. But -- I would suggest that this move, alone, doesn't pass muster for two reasons. First, it's an incremental improvement (remember, I'm swinging for the fence here :) ; and second, it does nothing to set a direction for the profession, which I personally feel is the primary deficit from which all other issues / complaints / challenges stem. In addition to other activities? Absolutely! But then we have another challenge: How do we account for the tripling of spells and the subsequent draw down of potential power accomplished in the other three lists that occurs? This is solvable, I'm sure -- but we can't just move it in without considering those broader implications.
Doug
Excellent points. I have a couple of further thoughts to share, but I don't believe I can fully address some of the concerns listed.
On the matter of adjustments to the sorcery profession list -- I fully support the concept of really increasing this list's power. I appreciate that there is a belief that the list can be successfully modified to create room for increasing the profession's direction. I would certainly aspire to exactly that -- it's an easier planning path. But, I'm sort of reserved, at the same time. In terms of effort, I think dropping / combining and tweaking up are a bit less effort than a revamp. If the profession players / gurus / game leadership agreed and drove to this -- utopia!
To put it in perspective, I'm advocating transformational change to the sorcery profession in terms of alignment (devastation) and profession direction, not an incremental one. Call it a swing for the fence. :) But I am certainly supportive of tailoring the swing for a triple or even a double, if it brings some comfort yet defines the profession direction.
On the matter of combining the lists: that was meant to showcase how radical an idea may be that is net additive to sorcery without detracting one bit from other professions and how it could be characterized by the concept of guidelines for the profession. It wasn't intended to be the 'end result'. The direction for the profession is the 'end result' in my view. . . this is just one potential (although perhaps not the best) realization path for that.
On the matter of spell list selection / change -- I agree that it highly probable that this cannot be done without some perceived loss in some players' views. I would point out that the selection of 503 versus 403 is misplaced (Major combines with Major, not Minor). But the premise of the argument is valid. Which is more the likely selection (to continue the case), 403 or 103. And which is more the likely selection, 503 or 203?
I would say that the guidelines (when agreed to, not necessarily those proposed) would govern. For example -- IF we agreed that the profession was all about bringing power to bear to destroy the enemy, the choices are 103 and 503 respectively above. . . both defensive, yes. But sometimes the best offense is being able to survive long enough to cast offensively. :) The guideline suggested (not a utility profession, guideline 6) would guide those choices to that state.
Important note -- this must be contrasted against suggested guideline 5 (not the weakest consistently in all areas).
Still, I absolutely agree with the observations, and appreciate that feedback. Any suggestion can only be made stronger by challenging it, pointing out weaknesses and addressing those weaknesses. And we've listed three:
1) Forced 'choice' against existing capabilities can still feel like a 'sharp stick' rather than a 'long pole'.
2) Restructuring the profession base spell list may potentially lead to losses to get gains.
3) Transformational change may be a bit too risky, and so it may be prudent to back off just a bit to transitional change (but still to make it better than incremental improvement?)
On matters of the mind (Minor Mental). I think V was the first player to suggest this course, and I still support it. But -- I would suggest that this move, alone, doesn't pass muster for two reasons. First, it's an incremental improvement (remember, I'm swinging for the fence here :) ; and second, it does nothing to set a direction for the profession, which I personally feel is the primary deficit from which all other issues / complaints / challenges stem. In addition to other activities? Absolutely! But then we have another challenge: How do we account for the tripling of spells and the subsequent draw down of potential power accomplished in the other three lists that occurs? This is solvable, I'm sure -- but we can't just move it in without considering those broader implications.
Doug
I don't read Doug's posts, but Kastrel's summary is not a horrible idea, but it doesn't fix our problems if it is really just copies of spells from those two circles without any further lore work. It is GM labor saving certainly to just copy spells, but in the end we'd have a major circle, okay, neat. We're now equal to the other three pure professions in spell circle access, instead of being behind. However we remain behind in all those other categories, all the other short sticks. They change would not give us a long stick, it would bring us up to par in merely one category while doing nothing to counteract all our subpar qualities in other categories.
So, is it worth it doing that much work for the result? I do not think so. If we are going to ask for that amount of GM work I'd like it to be on a project that gives us a long stick.
I agree. What I see happening with such a transition is gaining a handful of buffs from Major Elemental, some of its warding spells, and a handful of utility spells from Major Spiritual. We would likely see some overall increase in self-spell buffs (if we got Elemental Focus, Bravery, Heroism, or Strength, we would see either melee or bolt buffs, and Thurfel's, Spirit Shield, Elemental Deflect, etc give DS). We would probably use some useful spells like Stun Relief or Lock/Disarm spells. I suppose we might see a net gain in utility, especially if we were to get other-cast spells. We probably WOULD be better for it, it might mitigate a handful of the issues we have, like low bolt AS, extremely low physical AS, and depending on the spells, maneuver issues. Even a handful of bolts in there.
But I really don't see that being the correct answer. What it WILL do is bring down a horde of Clerics, Empaths and Wizards upset that we are stealing their spells, and that will be that as far as getting the "good ones".
But I really don't see that being the correct answer. What it WILL do is bring down a horde of Clerics, Empaths and Wizards upset that we are stealing their spells, and that will be that as far as getting the "good ones".
A lot of those buffs would be fake gains anyways. DS/TD is pretty balanced across professions, gaining any such spells would only result in 712 being downtweaked, and we'd end up roughly in the same boat as before. Trading 6 for a half dozen doesn't get you anywhere.
I also happen to think that GMs think that we're balanced for Bolt AS as well. Curse of the Star is the most recent bolt AS buff spell released to the game, it caps at what? +37 AS? That isn't an arbitrary number, I think it was purposefully chosen, and if it was purposefully chosen what are the odds we can convince them they aimed too low mere months later? Especially when at least one sorcerer tried to get them to aim higher (42 42 42) just prior to the release.
>A lot of those buffs would be fake gains anyways. DS/TD is pretty balanced across professions, gaining any such spells would only result in 712 being downtweaked, and we'd end up roughly in the same boat as before. Trading 6 for a half dozen doesn't get you anywhere.
Pretty balanced, but not entirely. My estimates showed that most sorcerers would have the lowest self-spell DS, and with special focus on Minor Spiritual, could eventually catch up to Empaths, while Wizards and Clerics remained 10-20 DS ahead of both. Thats a whole standard defensive spell worth of DS. I admit I did no estimates of TD, so I cannot account for that.
Pretty balanced, but not entirely. My estimates showed that most sorcerers would have the lowest self-spell DS, and with special focus on Minor Spiritual, could eventually catch up to Empaths, while Wizards and Clerics remained 10-20 DS ahead of both. Thats a whole standard defensive spell worth of DS. I admit I did no estimates of TD, so I cannot account for that.
Oh, I'm not so sure that there'd be all that much ruckus from wizards. It would be manageable, I would think. I suspect the clerics and empaths could likewise be accommodated.
But I want to point something out -- in the short course of this discussion, we're again looking in the rear view mirror. That's a dangerous way to get to a destination. Unless, of course, you're driving in reverse.
Nothing I suggested would be set in stone. Consider instead just the concept. Specify the guidelines that are important to sorcery, set the direction for sorcery, and begin implementation. Where implementation involves cross pollination from existing spells for ease of implementation, simply communicate the direction and the need, and move. Where implementation requires new (and hopefully, there's some of that), dig in and create.
What I am suggesting, though, is that we the players don't need to overly burden ourselves with the affects of 'stealing', or of 'being too much'. The GMs will work that in as they implement the direction we suggest and they adopt. At this stage, worry less about balance and more about dreaming possibilities that suit.
Our guiding principle shouldn't be what other professions have, or what they can do, or what they won't accept. That rear view mirror simply limits our vision. Dragging it back there simply limits our reality. There's more than enough of that.
Swing for the fence! Or, as I mention to teams when I'm engaged in working through transformative efforts -- don't let what you know today limit what you can imagine for the future.
Doug
But I want to point something out -- in the short course of this discussion, we're again looking in the rear view mirror. That's a dangerous way to get to a destination. Unless, of course, you're driving in reverse.
Nothing I suggested would be set in stone. Consider instead just the concept. Specify the guidelines that are important to sorcery, set the direction for sorcery, and begin implementation. Where implementation involves cross pollination from existing spells for ease of implementation, simply communicate the direction and the need, and move. Where implementation requires new (and hopefully, there's some of that), dig in and create.
What I am suggesting, though, is that we the players don't need to overly burden ourselves with the affects of 'stealing', or of 'being too much'. The GMs will work that in as they implement the direction we suggest and they adopt. At this stage, worry less about balance and more about dreaming possibilities that suit.
Our guiding principle shouldn't be what other professions have, or what they can do, or what they won't accept. That rear view mirror simply limits our vision. Dragging it back there simply limits our reality. There's more than enough of that.
Swing for the fence! Or, as I mention to teams when I'm engaged in working through transformative efforts -- don't let what you know today limit what you can imagine for the future.
Doug
>Pretty balanced, but not entirely. My estimates showed that most sorcerers would have the lowest self-spell DS, and with special focus on Minor Spiritual, could eventually catch up to Empaths, while Wizards and Clerics remained 10-20 DS ahead of both. Thats a whole standard defensive spell worth of DS. I admit I did no estimates of TD, so I cannot account for that.
Balance does not always equal equality. Wizards, for instance, have more DS because they have less TD. In GS3, in the rift, a bard was actually able to put up more TD than a wizard. They're also in the thinnest armor.
Clerics have more DS because they are a favored profession.
See, there is always a reason.
But really, DS and TD shouldn't be an issue for any pure, if they are, you're doing it wrong. And when I say they're balanced, I mean that they were deliberately done as they exist now. Decisions were made to do them like they are. This contrasts with things like sorcerer training costs that I do not think much thought WAS put into, it is very obviously someone's error.
In anycase, 712 was the very last thing done before the conversion to GS4, the other professions were already set, they almost launched GS4 without 712, and probably would have, had the loss of it not made sorcerers unhuntable. Had they wanted us to have more DS and TD, I think they would have given it to us then.
>In anycase, 712 was the very last thing done before the conversion to GS4, the other professions were already set, they almost launched GS4 without 712, and probably would have, had the loss of it not made sorcerers unhuntable. Had they wanted us to have more DS and TD, I think they would have given it to us then.
But . . . and I know as a long time player, this may not count for much to you, but that was a long time ago. Guru's have come and gone. Whole hierarchies of management on various levels have changed. Nilven came, made many great additions, and move right along. I know much of what Nilven could NOT do for us (that I know he wanted to do) was because of the control of Warden, who may actually have HAD something out against the profession for all we know. But the thing is, the people in charge are not the same, and they may realize the management has changed, and the "old rules" may not be applicable anymore. If I recall correctly, I remember when Estild was new, but Estild is a well established and veteran GM now. So much time has passed that maybe, just maybe, the people in charge might look at the profession and say "Why were things supposed to be like this?" and change it, because whatever bias that existed has moved on with the people who held them. Anything more current is just aftershocks. So I do hold out hope, and I understand that as someone who has spent a LOT more time watching the profession get shafted, you would find it hard to hold onto any, and I respect that.
But . . . and I know as a long time player, this may not count for much to you, but that was a long time ago. Guru's have come and gone. Whole hierarchies of management on various levels have changed. Nilven came, made many great additions, and move right along. I know much of what Nilven could NOT do for us (that I know he wanted to do) was because of the control of Warden, who may actually have HAD something out against the profession for all we know. But the thing is, the people in charge are not the same, and they may realize the management has changed, and the "old rules" may not be applicable anymore. If I recall correctly, I remember when Estild was new, but Estild is a well established and veteran GM now. So much time has passed that maybe, just maybe, the people in charge might look at the profession and say "Why were things supposed to be like this?" and change it, because whatever bias that existed has moved on with the people who held them. Anything more current is just aftershocks. So I do hold out hope, and I understand that as someone who has spent a LOT more time watching the profession get shafted, you would find it hard to hold onto any, and I respect that.
Maybe... but do we need more DS and TD? Not really. I really think pures are pretty balanced in that department. Most pures avoid being hit by anything unless they've been maneuvered first, which makes it a maneuver issue, not a DS issue. We don't need a massive GM work effort to fix something that isn't really broken.
