Previous Thread
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...
Sorcerers were definitely getting a new spell called Ensorcel. It was talked about, planned, and pretty much a foregone conclusion. For those who don't remember, this would have been the functional equivalent of wizards' Enchant, but for TD instead of AS/DS. It was a groovy idea, intended to give sorcerers a solid utility, and the rest of the world a needed service.
Whatever happened to Ensorcel?
Having followed another discussion in the Armor topic, it seems apparent that TD is the main issue facing a lot of characters, especially squares. I think the ability to ensorcel armor and shields would fill a need, and breath a little new life into sorcery. Granted, if it's like enchanting it will be time consuming, expensive and potentially hazardous. But it would also provide experience and income (potentially lots of income). It would certainly increase demand for our services.
When I returned after a long (years) absence, I was both disappointed and surprised to find Ensorcel was not only unimplemented, but virtually forgotten. Is nobody interested in this spell anymore? Was it suddenly deemed "game breaking" by the powers-that-be and cast off into the same pit as breakage and engagement systems?
It could be that at one time Ensorcel was considered too imbalancing (not for us, but for those who benefited from our wares). I think perhaps that time has passed. With so many characters reaching cap, and the inherent new dangers they now face from CS based spells, I think the time for Ensorcel may have, at last, arrived.
Thoughts?
~ Heathyr and friends
Couldn't agree more strongly. I've liked the idea of this spell in this form since it was first discussed. As far as I'm concerned it is perfect in many ways - from giving Sorcerers a "utility" that would invigorate the profession, to providing a partial remedy to a difficulty a number of classes seem to have(TD deficiency), to already having a similar system template to use as the bones of the spell(Enchanting).
Avaia, player of
Avaia, player of
Oh god, I had forgotten about this proposal, believe it or not, and I took part in, I think, one of the originating concepts for the idea with Virlenius and Gahread and that lot.
That's slightly depressing.
In any case, I do like the idea, at least in theory. The devil is in the details, of course.
Aeillien's player
>Sorcerers were definitely getting a new spell called Ensorcel. It was talked about, planned, and pretty much a foregone conclusion.
My next comment isn't directed specifically at this idea/proposal, but it relates to a discussion I was having with a fellow staff member a few days ago...
To put it plainly, we (the dev team) could spend our entire staff careers implementing all those "forgone conclusions" discussed and promised by past staff members, and never be able to come up with a single project of our own. That prospect would not exactly overwhelm me with enthusiasm to continue working on the game. That isn't to say that we won't do such projects -- monks were finally released by a team that was a few generations removed from the original staff members who promised them, after all -- but you may not want to hold your breath for any specific project originally proposed by staff members who left years ago. On the other hand, you do get to be surprised with projects that may be even better ideas, every so often.
Incidentally, this is also the reason why development staff are now somewhat reluctant to talk about future projects. As a player, I was frustrated by what I perceived as lessened communication from the game developers, after years of robust conversation. As a staff member, I find that I'm now reluctant to discuss my own ongoing projects because I know what sort of bind my successors will be in, if I suddenly decide to resign and move to Bavaria to become a circus acrobat.
My next comment isn't directed specifically at this idea/proposal, but it relates to a discussion I was having with a fellow staff member a few days ago...
To put it plainly, we (the dev team) could spend our entire staff careers implementing all those "forgone conclusions" discussed and promised by past staff members, and never be able to come up with a single project of our own. That prospect would not exactly overwhelm me with enthusiasm to continue working on the game. That isn't to say that we won't do such projects -- monks were finally released by a team that was a few generations removed from the original staff members who promised them, after all -- but you may not want to hold your breath for any specific project originally proposed by staff members who left years ago. On the other hand, you do get to be surprised with projects that may be even better ideas, every so often.
Incidentally, this is also the reason why development staff are now somewhat reluctant to talk about future projects. As a player, I was frustrated by what I perceived as lessened communication from the game developers, after years of robust conversation. As a staff member, I find that I'm now reluctant to discuss my own ongoing projects because I know what sort of bind my successors will be in, if I suddenly decide to resign and move to Bavaria to become a circus acrobat.
>To put it plainly, we (the dev team) could spend our entire staff careers implementing all those "forgone conclusions" discussed and promised by past staff members, and never be able to come up with a single project of our own.
>Incidentally, this is also the reason why development staff are now somewhat reluctant to talk about future projects. As a player, I was frustrated by what I perceived as lessened communication from the game developers, after years of robust conversation. As a staff member, I find that I'm now reluctant to discuss my own ongoing projects because I know what sort of bind my successors will be in, if I suddenly decide to resign and move to Bavaria to become a circus acrobat.
That's all pretty fair, actually, the past is, in many ways, past.
That being said.... There is a sort of middle ground between making specific promises and being incommunicado: discussing game theory.
And example of this might be to post in response to this something to the effect of "Means of enhancing TD among players is something our current bunch are considering as something which could, perhaps be done. Sorcerers one be one way to achieve that end. But this is still in debate, and we can promise nothing." Or, alternatively "Giving players the ability to boost TD is something that has been considered and rejected because we believe <stuff>. We haven't decided anything as regards giving Sorcerers another utility spell, but Ensorcel is unlikely to be that spell even if we did, due to larger game concerns."
I know players can be a fractious bunch and will probably not take such announcements well, but after making that statement you cna go off and do other stuff, those that rage will rage, and eventually they will cool down. Then come back and see what the less angry players said, and make a similar response to any points they might have made.
Of course, this is just a suggestion. The game will likely proceed one way or another. But it does strike me as a middle ground between specifics and silence.
So, as regards Ensorcel, you are by no means held by the promises of the past. So let us consider it anew, without making promises. Can or does it fit into the game? If yes, then say that and no more, if no, then say that, and we can move on. :)
Aeillien's player
>Incidentally, this is also the reason why development staff are now somewhat reluctant to talk about future projects. As a player, I was frustrated by what I perceived as lessened communication from the game developers, after years of robust conversation. As a staff member, I find that I'm now reluctant to discuss my own ongoing projects because I know what sort of bind my successors will be in, if I suddenly decide to resign and move to Bavaria to become a circus acrobat.
That's all pretty fair, actually, the past is, in many ways, past.
That being said.... There is a sort of middle ground between making specific promises and being incommunicado: discussing game theory.
And example of this might be to post in response to this something to the effect of "Means of enhancing TD among players is something our current bunch are considering as something which could, perhaps be done. Sorcerers one be one way to achieve that end. But this is still in debate, and we can promise nothing." Or, alternatively "Giving players the ability to boost TD is something that has been considered and rejected because we believe <stuff>. We haven't decided anything as regards giving Sorcerers another utility spell, but Ensorcel is unlikely to be that spell even if we did, due to larger game concerns."
I know players can be a fractious bunch and will probably not take such announcements well, but after making that statement you cna go off and do other stuff, those that rage will rage, and eventually they will cool down. Then come back and see what the less angry players said, and make a similar response to any points they might have made.
Of course, this is just a suggestion. The game will likely proceed one way or another. But it does strike me as a middle ground between specifics and silence.
So, as regards Ensorcel, you are by no means held by the promises of the past. So let us consider it anew, without making promises. Can or does it fit into the game? If yes, then say that and no more, if no, then say that, and we can move on. :)
Aeillien's player
So you acknowledge that there is a lack of communication between players and developers on the state of the game and where it's heading and then once you became a GM you decided the best course would be to not only continue that trend but make it worse? I will never understand Simu logic.
I think Finros is more disinclined to talk about current projects so that if something happens and they aren't done, the player base isn't left with a bad taste over broken promises. It makes sense. No one likes to be teased and promised things, wait forever, and then get nothing. I actually prefer that over DEV telling us they're working on X, and then we get all excited and start discussing how X is going to totally make the game more enjoyable, then X fizzles out and we players are left disappointed. Thanks for explaining your reasoning to us Finros. Keep the surprises coming!
>So you acknowledge that there is a lack of communication between players and developers on the state of the game and where it's heading and then once you became a GM you decided the best course would be to not only continue that trend but make it worse? I will never understand Simu logic.
From what I've seen Finros does an excellent job of communicating. But considering just about every time you read the sorcerer boards, inevitably someone says "Nilven said..." "Nilven was going to..." I can understand not wanting to leave someone in the future with the same bludgeon to be used against them. I don't even know who Nilven was, nor am I a GM, but honestly I'm tired of hearing about it, I'd rather we work on things in the future than bemoan someone who's not around to finish what they talked up... and I'd rather GMs tell me things that ARE going to happen that they're at a point that we can give good input, than tell me something they're thinking about, but we never see.
From what I've seen Finros does an excellent job of communicating. But considering just about every time you read the sorcerer boards, inevitably someone says "Nilven said..." "Nilven was going to..." I can understand not wanting to leave someone in the future with the same bludgeon to be used against them. I don't even know who Nilven was, nor am I a GM, but honestly I'm tired of hearing about it, I'd rather we work on things in the future than bemoan someone who's not around to finish what they talked up... and I'd rather GMs tell me things that ARE going to happen that they're at a point that we can give good input, than tell me something they're thinking about, but we never see.
>Hmm. You must be reading a different forum.
No, pretty sure I'm reading the same ones. He was very open about the entire process of Monks, even soliciting ideas from the player base for the messaging. He's responded about the state of alchemy in regards to chalk review, granted he won't do anything about it himself, but we have a better understanding of why it's not happening RIGHT NOW ALREADY, and then this, as to why so many of those "once upon a time" things don't occur. Maybe you don't like what he has to say, but he does say something.
No, pretty sure I'm reading the same ones. He was very open about the entire process of Monks, even soliciting ideas from the player base for the messaging. He's responded about the state of alchemy in regards to chalk review, granted he won't do anything about it himself, but we have a better understanding of why it's not happening RIGHT NOW ALREADY, and then this, as to why so many of those "once upon a time" things don't occur. Maybe you don't like what he has to say, but he does say something.
Again I have to disagree, with out combing through the boards, I've seen him respond in the Societies folders, he was the major responder to the Alchemy discussion, he responds in the UAC folder often. Don't forget the random opinion bits that get sprinkled all across the boards. As far as I can tell, he's one of the most talkative GMs, and definitely the one of the most talkative Dev GM.
What he shares may not always be what he's working on, or something earth shatteringly important, but it does usually give insight in to either why something we want can't happen, what has to happen before what we're asking about might happen, and typically his (very) honest opinion about whether he's going to be involved or not, and how important it is to the overall scope of the game.
What he shares may not always be what he's working on, or something earth shatteringly important, but it does usually give insight in to either why something we want can't happen, what has to happen before what we're asking about might happen, and typically his (very) honest opinion about whether he's going to be involved or not, and how important it is to the overall scope of the game.
>if I suddenly decide to resign and move to Bavaria to become a circus acrobat.
Here that everyone! Finros for Bavarian circus acrobat RSN! WE DEMAND UPDATES!
>Speaking of development. . . could we perhaps have some potential hints. . . teasers. . . etc.???
I'm actually curious about ANY word on what the development team is working on. There are tons of events going on, and storylines, but its important to remember that the professions are suffering from varying degrees of incompleteness . . . I'd love to know what exactly IS being worked on.
>I forgot when it was but for a short while if you did a SPELL ALL you would see
>735 - Ensorcell
About half a year ago, I woke up and it was suddenly like that for the first time since I was back. I made a big excited fuss about it, and then it disappeared again. I wonder when Oscuro and Estild are coming back . . .
________________________________
>Barnom exclaims, "I smell delicious!"
>Barnom says, "Like sage and nutmeg.
>"Walkar says, "Yes, too many kings never work. Especially when there's only one throne. It's a wicked game."
>Shameless plug.
Here that everyone! Finros for Bavarian circus acrobat RSN! WE DEMAND UPDATES!
>Speaking of development. . . could we perhaps have some potential hints. . . teasers. . . etc.???
I'm actually curious about ANY word on what the development team is working on. There are tons of events going on, and storylines, but its important to remember that the professions are suffering from varying degrees of incompleteness . . . I'd love to know what exactly IS being worked on.
>I forgot when it was but for a short while if you did a SPELL ALL you would see
>735 - Ensorcell
About half a year ago, I woke up and it was suddenly like that for the first time since I was back. I made a big excited fuss about it, and then it disappeared again. I wonder when Oscuro and Estild are coming back . . .
________________________________
>Barnom exclaims, "I smell delicious!"
>Barnom says, "Like sage and nutmeg.
>"Walkar says, "Yes, too many kings never work. Especially when there's only one throne. It's a wicked game."
>Shameless plug.
>That being said.... There is a sort of middle ground between making specific promises and being incommunicado: discussing game theory.
>So, as regards Ensorcel, you are by no means held by the promises of the past. So let us consider it anew, without making promises. Can or does it fit into the game? If yes, then say that and no more, if no, then say that, and we can move on. :)
Sure, from a theoretical point of view, I certainly have no objection to ensorcell. Discuss it all you'd like (and even if I personally objected to it, you'd still be welcome to discuss it all that you liked). Like I originally said, I didn't mean for my original post to be taken as a specific commentary on this proposal -- I simply saw it shortly after I was discussing the broader problem with a colleague, and hijacked the thread (which I probably shouldn't have done, heh).
>So you acknowledge that there is a lack of communication between players and developers on the state of the game and where it's heading and then once you became a GM you decided the best course would be to not only continue that trend but make it worse? I will never understand Simu logic.
I'm sympathetic to this viewpoint, don't get me wrong. I had exactly the opposite intention when I was first hired. But what it comes down to is this: I don't want to place a future development GM in the position of having to contend with my grandiose ideas that I never get around to implementing before I leave, whether that's tomorrow or fifteen years from now.
Even if that future GM feels no obligation to take up my abandoned projects -- and I personally feel some of that obligation about certain past projects, even when I don't think that they should be a priority -- there will inevitably be the clamor of people saying "Yes, I suppose that's neat, but it shouldn't have taken priority over this past promised project" every time that they release something new. It's a little disheartening to read that, I have to say. I accept it, but I'd rather not contribute to it for future staff. I think all my fellow team members feel that to some degree as well. I'm happy to discuss the current state of the game, but I'm wary about discussing any future plans when they might not actually come off.
>He was talkative up until monks were released then he stopped.
I do try to respond whenever I'm specifically called out about something. Otherwise, I'm probably a bit eclectic about where I comment. I keep a list of posts that I mean to respond to at some point (it's about a dozen entries long right now), but it sometimes takes a while before I've worked out what I want to say, or before I can actually make the change and then respond with "Okay, it's done."
>I'm actually curious about ANY word on what the development team is working on.
My own recent projects have been internal behind-the-scenes tools that players won't ever directly see. I have no big player-visible releases slated for the near future, I'm afraid, but I've got a couple of prospects that I'll probably take up soon. There's some interesting stuff in the pipeline from other staff members, but it isn't really my place to say anything about projects that aren't mine.
>So, as regards Ensorcel, you are by no means held by the promises of the past. So let us consider it anew, without making promises. Can or does it fit into the game? If yes, then say that and no more, if no, then say that, and we can move on. :)
Sure, from a theoretical point of view, I certainly have no objection to ensorcell. Discuss it all you'd like (and even if I personally objected to it, you'd still be welcome to discuss it all that you liked). Like I originally said, I didn't mean for my original post to be taken as a specific commentary on this proposal -- I simply saw it shortly after I was discussing the broader problem with a colleague, and hijacked the thread (which I probably shouldn't have done, heh).
>So you acknowledge that there is a lack of communication between players and developers on the state of the game and where it's heading and then once you became a GM you decided the best course would be to not only continue that trend but make it worse? I will never understand Simu logic.
I'm sympathetic to this viewpoint, don't get me wrong. I had exactly the opposite intention when I was first hired. But what it comes down to is this: I don't want to place a future development GM in the position of having to contend with my grandiose ideas that I never get around to implementing before I leave, whether that's tomorrow or fifteen years from now.
Even if that future GM feels no obligation to take up my abandoned projects -- and I personally feel some of that obligation about certain past projects, even when I don't think that they should be a priority -- there will inevitably be the clamor of people saying "Yes, I suppose that's neat, but it shouldn't have taken priority over this past promised project" every time that they release something new. It's a little disheartening to read that, I have to say. I accept it, but I'd rather not contribute to it for future staff. I think all my fellow team members feel that to some degree as well. I'm happy to discuss the current state of the game, but I'm wary about discussing any future plans when they might not actually come off.
>He was talkative up until monks were released then he stopped.
I do try to respond whenever I'm specifically called out about something. Otherwise, I'm probably a bit eclectic about where I comment. I keep a list of posts that I mean to respond to at some point (it's about a dozen entries long right now), but it sometimes takes a while before I've worked out what I want to say, or before I can actually make the change and then respond with "Okay, it's done."
>I'm actually curious about ANY word on what the development team is working on.
My own recent projects have been internal behind-the-scenes tools that players won't ever directly see. I have no big player-visible releases slated for the near future, I'm afraid, but I've got a couple of prospects that I'll probably take up soon. There's some interesting stuff in the pipeline from other staff members, but it isn't really my place to say anything about projects that aren't mine.
I remember discussing the release event of Ensorcell with Romulus back in the 90s, since it had been my original idea he said I could participate heavily in the release event, rofl.
I've since fallen out of love with the idea though. Essentially, I understand that the TD system is balanced. Sure, there is a "need" for more TD, but there is supposed to be a need for more TD. Adding more easily gotten TD into the game would require other changes (making more spells self cast only, or raising critter CS) to as of not upset the balance. As such, it'd become a fake bonus, as fake as the CS bonus from 425.
I of course, would love a way to earn as a sorcerer as a wizard can earn with enchanting.
If I had to choose though, for 735, between ensorcellment and a mass target CS spell of uberdoom, I choose the latter.
I would consider an item buffing spell for 750 though.
My only issue with the proposed concept of Ensorcel is that while a wizard has much to gain by enchanting their own equipment, a sorcerer does not, and in fact, stands to lose, since the TD system normally means that for every "TD" enchant you are short 1 less potential DS enchant. A wizard can enchant their armor, or their weapon/shield, or their runestaff, and gain tons of comparitively cheap equipment DS/AS, which is all very much USEFUL to a wizard. For instance, a sword and board wizard stands to gain 30 DS and 15 AS over basic 4x equipment with only the potion price as the cost. A sorcerer can do the very same with TD, but does a sorcerer really need so much TD? No, but the spell is designed to help squares and semis, but do I want a spell slot taken up with a complex enchanting-style system that is virtually useless for me?
In my book, I think Ensorcel, if it were to take a form such as this, would have to have one of the following systems in place:
A) A system that provides additional benefits to pures/heavy magic users.
B) Barring that, a system that provides additional benefits to sorcerers only, or at least, the sorcerer who ensorcelled the item.
C) Worst case scenario, have an entirely secondary function for ensorcell that benefits the user.
In A, the issue is that TD boosters are debatably limited in function for casters. Wizards need spirit TD, but can easily get it, and Clerics/Empaths need elemental TD, but can also easily get it. While enchanting has obvious benefit for ALL classes, and as such, provides a potential market of "everyone", ensorcel being limited to a basic TD booster would limit customers to squares and some semis. So while wizards would get a self-benefitting level 30 spell that can be used for great profit with a potential customer base of "everyone", sorcerers would get a NON-self-benefitting level 35 that can be used for great profit with a potential customer base of "some classes". This doesn't jive with me. If some additional benefit can be roped in, either a variable TD benefit based on total magic ranks, or even some additional think like TD flares, auto-ward flares, etc, that might appeal to a cleric who might say "Yeah, sacrificing 10 DS might be worth those 2 ensorcell ranks!"
In B, we don't improve the lackluster potential market, but we can at least make the spell more beneficial to sorcerers. Add in shadowdeath flares to ensorcelled equipment, the proc rate being tied to the number of ensorcel ranks. Or make spell absorb flares . . . give a small chance, with increasing % based on # of ensorcel enchants, that any incoming spell could be warded off and absorbed as mana.
And if none of that can be done, then C, Ensorcell simply needs a secondary function. Let us make the bland TD booster for the squares, and then have something else we can do for ourselves. I'd prefer that A or B was chosen, since this seems the least parsimonious, but . . . if Ensorcell is nothing more than "TD booster in place of DS enchant ranks" then I'll pass.
As an aside, in any event where Ensorcell does such, I think that the "max of 7x" system could be revised. Make it so that any one item could have no more than 7x of an individual enchant (wizard enchant OR ensorcell), but could be taken to a total of 10x without merchant interference in a combination of the two. For instance, 6x enchant:4x ensorcel would be possible. 8x ensorcel:2x enchant would not. This would potentially increase both our customer base AND self-benefit, as no one has to say "sure, that TD would be nice, but I'd much rather have 5 DS". Anyone could work their equipment up to 7x DS and get 3x ensorcel on top. Otherwise, the spell will always take a backseat to Wizard Enchant, and as such, will constantly be passed over and not provide income. Which is all it would do anyway.
________________________________
>Barnom exclaims, "I smell delicious!"
>Barnom says, "Like sage and nutmeg.
>"Walkar says, "Yes, too many kings never work. Especially when there's only one throne. It's a wicked game."
>Shameless plug.
In my book, I think Ensorcel, if it were to take a form such as this, would have to have one of the following systems in place:
A) A system that provides additional benefits to pures/heavy magic users.
B) Barring that, a system that provides additional benefits to sorcerers only, or at least, the sorcerer who ensorcelled the item.
C) Worst case scenario, have an entirely secondary function for ensorcell that benefits the user.
In A, the issue is that TD boosters are debatably limited in function for casters. Wizards need spirit TD, but can easily get it, and Clerics/Empaths need elemental TD, but can also easily get it. While enchanting has obvious benefit for ALL classes, and as such, provides a potential market of "everyone", ensorcel being limited to a basic TD booster would limit customers to squares and some semis. So while wizards would get a self-benefitting level 30 spell that can be used for great profit with a potential customer base of "everyone", sorcerers would get a NON-self-benefitting level 35 that can be used for great profit with a potential customer base of "some classes". This doesn't jive with me. If some additional benefit can be roped in, either a variable TD benefit based on total magic ranks, or even some additional think like TD flares, auto-ward flares, etc, that might appeal to a cleric who might say "Yeah, sacrificing 10 DS might be worth those 2 ensorcell ranks!"
In B, we don't improve the lackluster potential market, but we can at least make the spell more beneficial to sorcerers. Add in shadowdeath flares to ensorcelled equipment, the proc rate being tied to the number of ensorcel ranks. Or make spell absorb flares . . . give a small chance, with increasing % based on # of ensorcel enchants, that any incoming spell could be warded off and absorbed as mana.
And if none of that can be done, then C, Ensorcell simply needs a secondary function. Let us make the bland TD booster for the squares, and then have something else we can do for ourselves. I'd prefer that A or B was chosen, since this seems the least parsimonious, but . . . if Ensorcell is nothing more than "TD booster in place of DS enchant ranks" then I'll pass.
As an aside, in any event where Ensorcell does such, I think that the "max of 7x" system could be revised. Make it so that any one item could have no more than 7x of an individual enchant (wizard enchant OR ensorcell), but could be taken to a total of 10x without merchant interference in a combination of the two. For instance, 6x enchant:4x ensorcel would be possible. 8x ensorcel:2x enchant would not. This would potentially increase both our customer base AND self-benefit, as no one has to say "sure, that TD would be nice, but I'd much rather have 5 DS". Anyone could work their equipment up to 7x DS and get 3x ensorcel on top. Otherwise, the spell will always take a backseat to Wizard Enchant, and as such, will constantly be passed over and not provide income. Which is all it would do anyway.
________________________________
>Barnom exclaims, "I smell delicious!"
>Barnom says, "Like sage and nutmeg.
>"Walkar says, "Yes, too many kings never work. Especially when there's only one throne. It's a wicked game."
>Shameless plug.
I'm not sure where you got 30th level Wizard spell, but Enchant is only 25th level.
If Ensorcell actually were to slot in at 35, I would be totally down with it being more powerful than Enchant: it's a more powerful spell! "Look; 35th level!"
I like your "no side of it more than 7x, but 10x total" suggestion. (So you could have 7x/3x, or 3x/7x, and of course anything in between.)
.
It's a more powerful spell. So spice it up a little.
Wizards have familiars, Sorcerers have demons. Having DemonTypeX summoned in the room with you gives SpecialtyX; having DemonTypeY summoned gives you SpecialtyY. There's lots of different demons, right? This opens up the market to customers having you do multiple sets of armor, to get different Specials. Built in sales. :)
Sorcerers have different kinds of lore, right? Give different bonuses (maybe with [add potential Alchemy tie-in here] pre-temper potions?) for different Lores. Lower TD against living creatures but higher TD versus undead with Necromantic Lore, for example.
Addressing one of the other issues you raised about benefit to self: CvA already changes for Enchanted vs. non-Enchanted armor. AvD changes for superior & perfect craftsmanship. Perhaps allow the Sorcerer wearing his own Ensorcelled work to get an additional point of CvA (in his benefit) for each Ensorcellment cast on it. (Obviously limit +7, per the above stipulation.) Every little bit helps, especially in those +15 robes.)
.
My general take on spell suggestions--particularly high-level ones--is "go nuts." The GM application (the last one I looked at, anyway, back in the late '90s some time) said, and I paraphrase, "If you can imagine it, you can do it in GSL." Just come up with ideas and throw 'em out there. Get a big enough shotgun blast of effects, and the GMs can pick and choose what they want to do. Make enough of the possibilities modest enough, or self-limiting (You can have X or Y or Z, not neither XY nor XZ nor YZ.), and again things get more likely.
If Ensorcell actually were to slot in at 35, I would be totally down with it being more powerful than Enchant: it's a more powerful spell! "Look; 35th level!"
I like your "no side of it more than 7x, but 10x total" suggestion. (So you could have 7x/3x, or 3x/7x, and of course anything in between.)
.
It's a more powerful spell. So spice it up a little.
Wizards have familiars, Sorcerers have demons. Having DemonTypeX summoned in the room with you gives SpecialtyX; having DemonTypeY summoned gives you SpecialtyY. There's lots of different demons, right? This opens up the market to customers having you do multiple sets of armor, to get different Specials. Built in sales. :)
Sorcerers have different kinds of lore, right? Give different bonuses (maybe with [add potential Alchemy tie-in here] pre-temper potions?) for different Lores. Lower TD against living creatures but higher TD versus undead with Necromantic Lore, for example.
Addressing one of the other issues you raised about benefit to self: CvA already changes for Enchanted vs. non-Enchanted armor. AvD changes for superior & perfect craftsmanship. Perhaps allow the Sorcerer wearing his own Ensorcelled work to get an additional point of CvA (in his benefit) for each Ensorcellment cast on it. (Obviously limit +7, per the above stipulation.) Every little bit helps, especially in those +15 robes.)
.
My general take on spell suggestions--particularly high-level ones--is "go nuts." The GM application (the last one I looked at, anyway, back in the late '90s some time) said, and I paraphrase, "If you can imagine it, you can do it in GSL." Just come up with ideas and throw 'em out there. Get a big enough shotgun blast of effects, and the GMs can pick and choose what they want to do. Make enough of the possibilities modest enough, or self-limiting (You can have X or Y or Z, not neither XY nor XZ nor YZ.), and again things get more likely.
>I've since fallen out of love with the idea though. Essentially, I understand that the TD system is balanced. Sure, there is a "need" for more TD, but there is supposed to be a need for more TD. Adding more easily gotten TD into the game would require other changes (making more spells self cast only, or raising critter CS) to as of not upset the balance. As such, it'd become a fake bonus, as fake as the CS bonus from 425.
>My only issue with the proposed concept of Ensorcel is that while a wizard has much to gain by enchanting their own equipment, a sorcerer does not, and in fact, stands to lose, since the TD system normally means that for every "TD" enchant you are short 1 less potential DS enchant.
Some good points here. So, let's expand on the original idea. Back when Ensorcell was first considered, it was a very different game. There are two things I can think of that Ensorcell could do that might, under present circumstances, be worthwhile.
1) Provide a CS boost rather than TD boost.
2) Tie it into the enhancive system. So, basically, Sorcerers can alter items to give some of the various bonuses that are possible. Create mana regeneration items. Stats boosting items. Whatever. This is a system that is obviously more potentially powerful, far reaching and complex, but precisely because of that it's more promising. Obviously we'd want to limit "what enhancements" we could ensorcel, and the same rule about needing to recharge the thing for it to be effective hold etc etc.
>My only issue with the proposed concept of Ensorcel is that while a wizard has much to gain by enchanting their own equipment, a sorcerer does not, and in fact, stands to lose, since the TD system normally means that for every "TD" enchant you are short 1 less potential DS enchant.
Some good points here. So, let's expand on the original idea. Back when Ensorcell was first considered, it was a very different game. There are two things I can think of that Ensorcell could do that might, under present circumstances, be worthwhile.
1) Provide a CS boost rather than TD boost.
2) Tie it into the enhancive system. So, basically, Sorcerers can alter items to give some of the various bonuses that are possible. Create mana regeneration items. Stats boosting items. Whatever. This is a system that is obviously more potentially powerful, far reaching and complex, but precisely because of that it's more promising. Obviously we'd want to limit "what enhancements" we could ensorcel, and the same rule about needing to recharge the thing for it to be effective hold etc etc.
<<<2) Tie it into the enhancive system.>>>
750 · Enhance Item [ENHANCE]
Duration: Immediate
Description: Utility
Through skillful manipulation of extra-planar forces, the sorcerer is able to bend and shape the flows of essence to infuse magical, enhancive properties into certain items. The item must be specially prepared to accept such magic, using dark rituals involving both elemental and spiritual components. The ritual may also involve the sacrifice of a creature possessing the desired quality, infusing a portion of its life-force into the object. For instance, enhancing an item with health regeneration properties may require the sacrifice of a troll.
Possible enhancements include mana, stamina, health, skills and stats. Similar to enchanting, the results will depend upon the training of the sorcerer, as well as the type and quality of the item, the components used in the ritual, and the relative power of the sacrificed being. Items with greater value and magical properties will be able to hold greater enhancements, but at a proportionately higher cost. Common, everyday items will be able to hold very little, if any, enhancement.
...and so forth and so on. Feel free to pick up where I left off. :)
~ Heathyr and friends
>750 · Enhance Item [ENHANCE]
No components. That Ensorcel, should it come to exist, is basically guaranteed to have some is bad enough.
________________________________
>Barnom exclaims, "I smell delicious!"
>Barnom says, "Like sage and nutmeg.
>"Walkar says, "Yes, too many kings never work. Especially when there's only one throne. It's a wicked game."
>Shameless plug.
No components. That Ensorcel, should it come to exist, is basically guaranteed to have some is bad enough.
________________________________
>Barnom exclaims, "I smell delicious!"
>Barnom says, "Like sage and nutmeg.
>"Walkar says, "Yes, too many kings never work. Especially when there's only one throne. It's a wicked game."
>Shameless plug.
<<<<No components. That Ensorcel, should it come to exist, is basically guaranteed to have some is bad enough.>>>>
I think the idea that the ability to create enhancive items wouldn't involve components is vastly unrealistic. This would be a very powerful, very in-demand ability. That's why I put it at 750. It would certainly come with some cost. If we were talking about a more mundane spell, I'd agree.
~ Heathyr and friends
I think the idea that the ability to create enhancive items wouldn't involve components is vastly unrealistic. This would be a very powerful, very in-demand ability. That's why I put it at 750. It would certainly come with some cost. If we were talking about a more mundane spell, I'd agree.
~ Heathyr and friends
As to the CS boost. I dont like it. What would happen is that you end up with critters having higher TDs, like ASPEN pointed out with 425. it ends up not being a bonus but a requirement.
Now I love the idea of a mass CS spell with 735. I love it.
750 · Enhance Item [ENHANCE]
Duration: Immediate
Description: Utility
Now this i could seriously get behind. Honestly no sacrifices or anything. Make it like enchant, you need a potion, greater cost of the potion the higher the bonus you are looking for. I do not want another system that requires me to carry around another dozen components. Let us do items and orbs.
The more i think about it enhancives are really the only type of item creation that would have a large demand among the player population.
Player of Malisai
Now I love the idea of a mass CS spell with 735. I love it.
750 · Enhance Item [ENHANCE]
Duration: Immediate
Description: Utility
Now this i could seriously get behind. Honestly no sacrifices or anything. Make it like enchant, you need a potion, greater cost of the potion the higher the bonus you are looking for. I do not want another system that requires me to carry around another dozen components. Let us do items and orbs.
The more i think about it enhancives are really the only type of item creation that would have a large demand among the player population.
Player of Malisai
>I of course, would love a way to earn as a sorcerer as a wizard can earn with enchanting.
I know it would piss some people off because of some items that do similar things, but I think being able to manipulate scrolls would be cool. Just some rough ideas I've had about it could include adding a guild skill that could be used to create scroll material (paper/ink) of various qualities. Ideally it would not be part of alchemy, though it would certainly need more added to it if it were a separate skill. Make a couple baseline scrolls available via guild or alchemy shop so that the scroll creation skill isn't required, but would be available for creating scrolls with a higher mana capacity.
The skill itself would mostly revolve around using a blank scroll to transfer existing spells from other scrolls to the new one. This would give us a very useful ability that could cut out a lot of excess clutter from people's inventory. It would allow us to put spells on a higher capacity scroll, possibly enhance the charging process by providing more accurate charge info, allow for specific spells to be charged, and see spells that have run out of charges. These benefits would only be available on scrolls a sorcerer makes rather than a general scroll overhaul. Other neat gimmick-type things could be added via the guild skill, maybe something like different invoke messaging or some small added effect based on the type of spell used.
I know it would piss some people off because of some items that do similar things, but I think being able to manipulate scrolls would be cool. Just some rough ideas I've had about it could include adding a guild skill that could be used to create scroll material (paper/ink) of various qualities. Ideally it would not be part of alchemy, though it would certainly need more added to it if it were a separate skill. Make a couple baseline scrolls available via guild or alchemy shop so that the scroll creation skill isn't required, but would be available for creating scrolls with a higher mana capacity.
The skill itself would mostly revolve around using a blank scroll to transfer existing spells from other scrolls to the new one. This would give us a very useful ability that could cut out a lot of excess clutter from people's inventory. It would allow us to put spells on a higher capacity scroll, possibly enhance the charging process by providing more accurate charge info, allow for specific spells to be charged, and see spells that have run out of charges. These benefits would only be available on scrolls a sorcerer makes rather than a general scroll overhaul. Other neat gimmick-type things could be added via the guild skill, maybe something like different invoke messaging or some small added effect based on the type of spell used.
>No components. That Ensorcel, should it come to exist, is basically guaranteed to have some is bad enough.
>I think the idea that the ability to create enhancive items wouldn't involve components is vastly unrealistic. This would be a very powerful, very in-demand ability. That's why I put it at 750. It would certainly come with some cost. If we were talking about a more mundane spell, I'd agree.
>I know, but we've gotta hammer away anyhow. Sometimes it works (Balefire), sometimes not so much (Major Summoning).
I think this all ties together. The problem with Major Summoning is the problem of Too Awesome to Exist and we must Limit The Awesomeness by Making You Use Stuff, which is a common Gemstone thing.
Minor Demons and Minor Demon summoning is essentially a slightly more complex Familiar or Animal Companion. It's arguably much more useful than a Familiar Mechanically, since it can hold mana, silvers and treasure, as well as working to help one specific sorcerer spell and a few other interesting abilities.
It's arguably less useful than AC since it can't be used in direct combat, but opinions on that might differ since a Demon can do things a AC can't. However, summoning a Minor Demon is more complex than finding an Animal Companion, so either way, there's a diffrence there.
There's runestones, a specific lore you have to train in, can't bring them into most towns without training in a guild skill etc etc. So Demons are more mechanically and logistically complicated than the other companion spells (and let's not even talk about Animate Dead, shall we?). Why is this? I think part of it is this sort of mystique around demons, because the game calls them demons, if that makes sense. They're scary things summoned by scary magic, so all these steps seem necessary in a way that a Ranger finding a wolf to help them isn't, despite the fact that objectively speaking a wolf could probably kill an Imp.
Major Summoning takes all these problems and turns them up to 11. I mean, first of, it's was going to be a level 50 spell. It had to be. But how many professions actually have their level 50 spell? Clerics and Rangers seems to be it. Level 50 spells have to be so awesome, so super cool, that we (players and GM's booth, I think) create an image of what such a spell "should be". But what such a spell "should be" is hard to balance into the game. Furthermore, it's also hard to imagine and create something that feels like it's "worth it" for that spell slot, and so on. So level 50 spells tend not to happen.
So Major Summoning, in short, likely wont happen. Honestly, I'm not even sure it should. The defeat of Despana allegedly was at the hands of minor demons (which minor demons, and why we can't summon them is a good question..). So Koar only knows what Major Demons can do.
Even lower level spells get "balance" by adding components to make them harder and more expensive to cast, under, I think, a theory that this will make the spell seem more rare and valuable. I, personally, don't think the practice and result of that kind of theory has actually worked towards making spells seem more "special."
In other words, I do think the emphasis on components is.. I dunno, it theory it sounds cool, but we've been here before, and in practice it just becomes a chore to collect all these things, have them handy, and then use them for one spell. We've seen this with Scroll Infusion, Minor Demon Summoning, Animate Dead, and Planar Shift. Each of these spells has different component loads and different benefits for their component loads, and some of the component vs utility benefits end up in the definite positive category, but still, its a complication. Others, of course are judged by (most/some) people to be more trouble than they are worth.
And for whatever reason, it seems as though more Sorcerer Spells fall pray to "component-itis" than any other Profession I can think of.
Let me be clear, I don't think its a conspiracy, or something. I just think that certain tendencies of how the game tends to be developed get centered in the Sorcerer Profession for a complex series of reasons. Making Lores a requirement rather than a benefit. Tying spells down with components, so on and so forth. And each of these spells was developed independently, by and large, by different teams and different times, so perhaps the overall impact of all these spells and their components as a whole hasn't really been considered.
So, ideally, I wouldn't want Ensorcel, or Enhance, or whatever, to be much more complex than Enchanting. Maybe a bit. Have us use potions, vaguely similar limits on projects, and one additional component, ideally one that uses the same basic component of an existing spell, maybe Scroll Infusion runestones, or something. I think that it's both a better fit and more likely to happen if we think of it as a 735 spell than a 750 spell. I mean, enchanting is 925. So 735 is ten levels higher. That in and of itself justifies some more benefit.
But either way, I'm not sure the component approach to making a spell "limited" has been successful at any of its goals, and I don't think it would work here either.
If you want to limit a spell, just limit it, the way Miracle is limited, or the way Enchanting projects are now limited. Just make it an explicit limit rather than burdening it with complex components that we have to spend time gathering to cast the thing. Just don't let us cast it as often and we can go and play the game and do other stuff. It's not as if there's some sort of shortage of things for us to gather for our spells as it is, after all.
Aeillien's player
>Whole bunch of Major Summoning stuff...
Yeah, I realized a long time ago it was never going to happen. If the spell were ever implemented, I think it'd be extremely difficult to live up to player expectations. I was just giving examples of things that have been asked for and were either implemented eventually or 'ignored'.
>The defeat of Despana allegedly was at the hands of minor demons (which minor demons, and why we can't summon them is a good question..). So Koar only knows what Major Demons can do.
This is retcon-ish in that those things were decided after Minor Summoning was created. The story can be fixed any way they want (kinda like they did recently with teleport restrictions and Voln), whenever they want. That most non-sorcerers and many sorcerers couldn't tell you any of these details only makes it easier.
Yeah, I realized a long time ago it was never going to happen. If the spell were ever implemented, I think it'd be extremely difficult to live up to player expectations. I was just giving examples of things that have been asked for and were either implemented eventually or 'ignored'.
>The defeat of Despana allegedly was at the hands of minor demons (which minor demons, and why we can't summon them is a good question..). So Koar only knows what Major Demons can do.
This is retcon-ish in that those things were decided after Minor Summoning was created. The story can be fixed any way they want (kinda like they did recently with teleport restrictions and Voln), whenever they want. That most non-sorcerers and many sorcerers couldn't tell you any of these details only makes it easier.
>The defeat of Despana allegedly was at the hands of minor demons (which minor demons, and why we can't summon them is a good question..). So Koar only knows what Major Demons can do.
The defeat of Despana was using what we are currently referring to as "lesser demons". They are the abyran'ra, the oculoth, the vathor, those sorts of things, at least in terms of combat ability. What we summon is the very, very low end of demon summoning, while the ideal 750 summoning spell that was always spoken of would summon "lesser demons". Major demons are entirely a different matter, they are comparable in power to Arkati and the Drakes. The Ur-demons were major demons, and even the lowest scale spectrum of major would never be summonable, meanwhile, the upper scale of lesser demons includes high end invasion creatures and a bit higher than that.
>And for whatever reason, it seems as though more Sorcerer Spells fall pray to "component-itis" than any other Profession I can think of.
Agreed. And we have enough components already to last a life-time. Aside from expanding the runestone system to a potential higher-end summoning spell, I think that we have more than paid our due in components. No more spells requiring them. If ensorcel has Enchant style potions, I could survive that. Anything more and its just becoming a joke. We are already the packrats of the game. Lets not make it worse.
________________________________
>Barnom exclaims, "I smell delicious!"
>Barnom says, "Like sage and nutmeg.
>"Walkar says, "Yes, too many kings never work. Especially when there's only one throne. It's a wicked game."
>Shameless plug.
The defeat of Despana was using what we are currently referring to as "lesser demons". They are the abyran'ra, the oculoth, the vathor, those sorts of things, at least in terms of combat ability. What we summon is the very, very low end of demon summoning, while the ideal 750 summoning spell that was always spoken of would summon "lesser demons". Major demons are entirely a different matter, they are comparable in power to Arkati and the Drakes. The Ur-demons were major demons, and even the lowest scale spectrum of major would never be summonable, meanwhile, the upper scale of lesser demons includes high end invasion creatures and a bit higher than that.
>And for whatever reason, it seems as though more Sorcerer Spells fall pray to "component-itis" than any other Profession I can think of.
Agreed. And we have enough components already to last a life-time. Aside from expanding the runestone system to a potential higher-end summoning spell, I think that we have more than paid our due in components. No more spells requiring them. If ensorcel has Enchant style potions, I could survive that. Anything more and its just becoming a joke. We are already the packrats of the game. Lets not make it worse.
________________________________
>Barnom exclaims, "I smell delicious!"
>Barnom says, "Like sage and nutmeg.
>"Walkar says, "Yes, too many kings never work. Especially when there's only one throne. It's a wicked game."
>Shameless plug.
>750 · Enhance Item [ENHANCE]
Can I also get a side of lobster and tenderloin?
You know, I'm not sure if GMs would ever give us the power to create permanent enhancives. That would be a very big deal.
HOWEVER, temporary ones, like those dachre enhancives. That, when they're out of charges, the item they're on does not crumble but persists, though the magic is gone (or like the recent nonrechargable quest prizes like that). That, I could see that. Then you don't need as much component load either, and it becomes a skill more like warrior/ranger resistance adding.
You could also tie it with the enhancive battery idea I posted previously in another folder (essentially Feruchemy stolen from the Mistborn series http://mistborn.wikia.com/wiki/Feruchemy). I'm told GMs discussed that idea amongst themselves a lot at Simucon and liked the potential. You prepare a vessel, and load strength to the vessel, so then to boost strength you must make yourself weak for a period of time. Then you have all this strength loaded up, and you can release it for a medium burst of moderate increase, a long burst of slight increase, or a short burst of significant increase.
The fashioning of these "batteries" could be our skill, each "enchant" would increase the storage capacity. Then, in a sense, we're not creating enhancives, so you don't need to justify it as much from a game balance perspective. We're creating a mechanism for people to enhancive themselves by alternatively weakening themselves and it is in this alternatively weakening that'd you'd balance the enhancive ability.
Of course, with just us making temporary enhancives, we'd get the razor blade model of economics where customers keep coming back for refills. A permanent vessel wouldn't give us the repeats, so I guess we'd just have to charge more.
