Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
Lore is not taken into account when comparing bolt AS. We have been told that multiple times. Clerics, without counting any Blessing lore, will have a smaller Bolt AS than sorcerers....Assuming that sorcerer has a full 75 ranks (or near to it) of the 400's circle.
Here is an X-post of my thoughts on this via the PC.
>+50 from 425 and +38 from the new spell is greater than the +35 from 307 and +40 from 211 and 215. - Rogane
Not counting (Blessing) lores, sure. I'm still a bit fuzzy on how training up to 75 ranks in a secondary circle is considered a given at 100, but it is never assumed that a player will train in a single rank of lore by cap. Pures are expected to 2x spells, I imagine. Any pure who doesn't 1x their own circle should be considered a mutant.
So, for sorcerers at cap we should have 101 sorcerer ranks, 75 Minor Elemental ranks, and ...25, 26 Minor Spiritual ranks? Likely not. You're more likely to have 101 sorcerer, 40 Minor Spiritual, and 60 Minor Elemental. That leaves a good 15 spell ranks between the max benefit of 425.
For the same breakdown of a Cleric, you're looking at 101 Cleric, 40 Minor Spiritual, 40 Major Spiritual, leaving 21 spell ranks to place where they please to make 2x. Granted, they get the full effects of 211 and 215 as soon as they learn the spells.
As I said, i'm fine with having to make up the points. I'm double capped. Coming up from zero, though, I wouldn't exactly call it fair not to factor in any Blessing's lore, yet it is perfectly fine to factor in a minimum of 15 extra spell ranks, likely at 63 PTPs a pop.
NOTE: I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR I AM NOT DISPARAGING CLERICS, I AM SIMPLY POINTING OUT AN INCONSISTENCY ON HOW STAFF VIEWS LORES AS NON-STANDARD, YET VIEWS TRIPLING AS STANDARD.
211 and 117 are both in the 'easily attainable' bucket, from my perspective.
If you were to take 211 out of the equation (since literally anyone can use it), then you end up with
Wizards : 113
Sorcerers : 88
Empaths : 80
Clerics : 76
Based on just spells alone (without lores).
Investing in lores changes that for clerics and empaths, but the deficit is 80 ranks for empaths and 120 ranks for clerics. They can double in these lores, but they'll also spread their points for other spells, so I'm not sure how pragmatic this is as a pre-cap goal.
What I'm interested in seeing is the growth rate for these spells. Again, discounting lores, and presuming maximum AS spell growth (if my math is right)
The sorcerer's progression is unknown, but one possible variant would look like this:
* note: Progression is estimated based on 9th level spell giving +15 AS base and +1 for every 4 spells known above 9 to level. Leaves 100th level at 87 instead of 88, but works to demonstrate one possible variant.
Admittedly I chose 709 rather arbitrarily, and have no idea what spell / base AS / seed will be used. This is just one possible combination. It does point out a progression in line with the other professions, to a degree.
Doug
If you were to take 211 out of the equation (since literally anyone can use it), then you end up with
Wizards : 113
Sorcerers : 88
Empaths : 80
Clerics : 76
Based on just spells alone (without lores).
Investing in lores changes that for clerics and empaths, but the deficit is 80 ranks for empaths and 120 ranks for clerics. They can double in these lores, but they'll also spread their points for other spells, so I'm not sure how pragmatic this is as a pre-cap goal.
What I'm interested in seeing is the growth rate for these spells. Again, discounting lores, and presuming maximum AS spell growth (if my math is right)
| Profession | 20 | 25 | 30 | 50 | 75 | 100 |
| Wizard | 23 | 51 | 55 | 75 | 101 | 113 |
| Empath | 25 | 25 | 45 | 55 | 67 | 80 |
| Cleric | 36 | 39 | 41 | 51 | 64 | 76 |
The sorcerer's progression is unknown, but one possible variant would look like this:
| Profession | 20 | 25 | 30 | 50 | 75 | 100 |
| Wizard | 23 | 51 | 55 | 75 | 101 | 113 |
| *Sorcerer | 17 | 44 | 47 | 62 | 81 | 87 |
| Empath | 25 | 25 | 45 | 55 | 67 | 80 |
| Cleric | 36 | 39 | 41 | 51 | 64 | 76 |
* note: Progression is estimated based on 9th level spell giving +15 AS base and +1 for every 4 spells known above 9 to level. Leaves 100th level at 87 instead of 88, but works to demonstrate one possible variant.
Admittedly I chose 709 rather arbitrarily, and have no idea what spell / base AS / seed will be used. This is just one possible combination. It does point out a progression in line with the other professions, to a degree.
Doug
People tailor their hunting all the time. It's got a lot to do with how one builds their characters.Just saying... ~Galenok
It also has a lot to do with what their character build is capable of doing, and there is a lot more room for variation in Empath/Cleric design than sorcerers, Bolt AS or otherwise.
It also has a lot to do with what their character build is capable of doing, and there is a lot more room for variation in Empath/Cleric design than sorcerers, Bolt AS or otherwise.
Couple of points:
Agree, V, the Rift poses that problem. AS is not the primary sorcerer hunting tool (nor, I would say, is it intended to be even with the advent of this spell), though, so anything better than 50 / 50 is win! (Semi-joking here, but your point is valid). More seriously, though -- we have heard over and over again that we don't do these things just for cap -- so I would amend 33% of cap to 7% (lazy estimate) of game.
Along the same lines, E, just adding balefire and an AS boost to improve capability is giving a strong shot in the arm to the sorcerer diversity capability -- ya know? And couple this with a limb removal -- stunned / prone -- wow!
I took the liberty of looking up what we knew about the bolt DF (this is old news, I think Danical gave us the initial read -- if not, apologies to the author). I don't want to drag this terror back out into the light, but it appears that with the exception of Major Acid against some armors, the DF is the strongest of all the ball spells, does splash as do the rest of the ball spells, and gets the added benefit of kicker crits when a demon is present (and the appropriate training is available, of course).
Overall, I like what I'm seeing. . . a question though -- V, would you be kind enough to post your Curse Buff proposal here on the officials so I can see how your proposal might fit?
Doug
Agree, V, the Rift poses that problem. AS is not the primary sorcerer hunting tool (nor, I would say, is it intended to be even with the advent of this spell), though, so anything better than 50 / 50 is win! (Semi-joking here, but your point is valid). More seriously, though -- we have heard over and over again that we don't do these things just for cap -- so I would amend 33% of cap to 7% (lazy estimate) of game.
Along the same lines, E, just adding balefire and an AS boost to improve capability is giving a strong shot in the arm to the sorcerer diversity capability -- ya know? And couple this with a limb removal -- stunned / prone -- wow!
I took the liberty of looking up what we knew about the bolt DF (this is old news, I think Danical gave us the initial read -- if not, apologies to the author). I don't want to drag this terror back out into the light, but it appears that with the exception of Major Acid against some armors, the DF is the strongest of all the ball spells, does splash as do the rest of the ball spells, and gets the added benefit of kicker crits when a demon is present (and the appropriate training is available, of course).
Overall, I like what I'm seeing. . . a question though -- V, would you be kind enough to post your Curse Buff proposal here on the officials so I can see how your proposal might fit?
Doug
I'm not sure I can agree or disagree with the quantification of 'substantially'. It is the single most expensive ball spell (by 2 mana, compared to 111, by 13 mana compared to 1710 -- as I haven't seen this natively cast, yet, -- and by 5 mana compared to 908). Is that appropriate? I think so. Is that substantial? I don't think so. But those are both opinions.
Here's how the DFs (on Krakii) presently are broken down. ( see http://www.krakiipedia.org/wiki/Bolt_spell )
Not sure how we get .01 out of that, but I won't argue the point. All of this is without lore training, too -- which is a question I think should be asked. In addition to the AS boost, what lore training effects for both the AS boost and Balefire are anticipated / supported. Targeted correctly, there should be a limited need to train up to maximize these. I realize we don't count them for base comparisons, but we can't just ignore the effects either. I can assure you, at least from the demon extra crit viewpoint from what I saw, they're not insignificant (but I don't know how realistic they are, either).
Finally, I'd suggest the Chain DF for 1710 get a look -- it seems oddly misplaced. But that's a discussion for another topic.
Doug
Here's how the DFs (on Krakii) presently are broken down. ( see http://www.krakiipedia.org/wiki/Bolt_spell )
| Spell | Robes | Soft L | Hard L | Chain | Plate | Splash |
| Fire Spirit (111) | 0.400 | 0.333 | 0.270 | 0.256 | 0.244 | Yes |
| Balefire (713) | 0.440 | 0.360 | 0.325 | 0.310 | 0.295 | Yes |
| Major Cold (907) | 0.445 | 0.350 | 0.245 | 0.217 | 0.208 | Yes |
| Major Fire (908) | 0.400 | 0.333 | 0.270 | 0.256 | 0.244 | Yes |
| Major Acid (1710) | 0.600 | 0.333 | 0.275 | 0.370 | 0.196 | Yes |
Not sure how we get .01 out of that, but I won't argue the point. All of this is without lore training, too -- which is a question I think should be asked. In addition to the AS boost, what lore training effects for both the AS boost and Balefire are anticipated / supported. Targeted correctly, there should be a limited need to train up to maximize these. I realize we don't count them for base comparisons, but we can't just ignore the effects either. I can assure you, at least from the demon extra crit viewpoint from what I saw, they're not insignificant (but I don't know how realistic they are, either).
Finally, I'd suggest the Chain DF for 1710 get a look -- it seems oddly misplaced. But that's a discussion for another topic.
Doug
One thing I wonder is how balefire's plasma will play with critter vulnerabilities.
One of the benefits of the wizard build is to be able to tailor your attack to the critter's vulnerabilities with elemental critters. Such as using 907 against say Fire Elementals. Even with no lore training, that can be a huge difference.
One suggestion I made earlier in the balefire discussion (like, months and months ago) was for balefire to be able to bypass anti-magical barriers (vvrael/constructs/etc) by nature of it's demon fueled extra-planar power. I don't think that went anywhere though, but I still like it conceptually.
One of the benefits of the wizard build is to be able to tailor your attack to the critter's vulnerabilities with elemental critters. Such as using 907 against say Fire Elementals. Even with no lore training, that can be a huge difference.
One suggestion I made earlier in the balefire discussion (like, months and months ago) was for balefire to be able to bypass anti-magical barriers (vvrael/constructs/etc) by nature of it's demon fueled extra-planar power. I don't think that went anywhere though, but I still like it conceptually.
There's a few things I would like to clear up. If it isn't obvious by now - the game is not balanced around easily obtainable items. It is balanced around what your character can do by himself with no outside help. It is not balanced around small statues, white/black/blue crystals, quartz orbs, moonstone cubes, pure/impure potions, etc... If you are comparing classes, you cannot bring these into account otherwise you're going to jump down into a puddle of crap you can't get out of.
Now as long as I've been playing GS, spells in the 1-10 range have been essentially your standard hunting spells. Spells 11-20 have been nifty/neat/powerful/misc. spells - but never meant to be a primary source of hunting (excluding the issues with empaths in days past which were resolved with 1106).
I'm gonna have to break this next one up into pieces.... (TL;DR = I disagree)
>2. This is a slight fail. It means we'll still be the worst. Last place, barely so, but there. It could be stomached if... if... we were first place in other lines...
You mean to tell me that being able to focus implode hunt darn near anything isn't good enough for a 'first place' in something?
>like if we had the best CS spells or something
701, 702, 703, 705, 706, 708, 711, 713, 715, 716, 718, 719... Don't even try to pretend you don't have the best CS spells.
>or I don't know, a good non hunting experience system
Wizards don't have crap either - unless you count enchanting which requires a good 25 days and a major to get any decent experience out of it. Sure Empaths/Clerics do - but you're not alone in that area.
>the lowest training costs
No idea on this one - training my sorcerer is stupid easy and he's stupid strong, perhaps you're doing something wrong if you think this is the case.
>or the best utility spells
Versatility of attack is what Sorcerers are about. You are a pain inflicting magical nightmare, utility is not something that you really need to be overly concerned with.
>But since we're also LAST in all of those categories. This is a fail. It should be slightly higher, to at least put us until the 90s in total bolt AS bonuses.
While I honestly wouldn't argue with seeing it brought up to say 95 total - I would venture to say that 88 is still a fair assessment considering this is the first sorcerer driven bolt, and it is in the 11+ range (i.e. fancy/cool, not primary hunting).
>Not counting (Blessing) lores, sure. I'm still a bit fuzzy on how training up to 75 ranks in a secondary circle is considered a given at 100, but it is never assumed that a player will train in a single rank of lore by cap. Pures are expected to 2x spells, I imagine. Any pure who doesn't 1x their own circle should be considered a mutant.
Wizards would be an exception to this rule as we can very easily get away with 40 wizard spells and no more (unless you want to enchant). Barring that - show me a non-mutant that doesn't spend any remaining training points on spells, and I'll show you someone that doesn't know what they're doing. YES, the game is likely balanced around 2x spells - but nobody does just 2x spells.
The reason we are comparing these spells at cap and maximum spells is because they are variable bonuses. An AS difference of 10-15 does not break someone's ability to hunt. Even considering your precept of 2x spells... 52 wizard, 75 mne, 75 mje... max targeting, 51/63 elemental focus. So in total I have lost 12 AS off of my potential max just by doing ONLY 2x in spells. If that breaks my hunting ability, I have much bigger issues to concern myself with.
>Why not? Because we have the best CS spells? The goal is not to have sorcerers be gimpy with bolts.
>Since GS4 started bolting has been my primary focus.
Maybe you should have been a wizard and not a Sorcerer then. There's a reason you have options.
~Athias (Platinum)
Now as long as I've been playing GS, spells in the 1-10 range have been essentially your standard hunting spells. Spells 11-20 have been nifty/neat/powerful/misc. spells - but never meant to be a primary source of hunting (excluding the issues with empaths in days past which were resolved with 1106).
I'm gonna have to break this next one up into pieces.... (TL;DR = I disagree)
>2. This is a slight fail. It means we'll still be the worst. Last place, barely so, but there. It could be stomached if... if... we were first place in other lines...
You mean to tell me that being able to focus implode hunt darn near anything isn't good enough for a 'first place' in something?
>like if we had the best CS spells or something
701, 702, 703, 705, 706, 708, 711, 713, 715, 716, 718, 719... Don't even try to pretend you don't have the best CS spells.
>or I don't know, a good non hunting experience system
Wizards don't have crap either - unless you count enchanting which requires a good 25 days and a major to get any decent experience out of it. Sure Empaths/Clerics do - but you're not alone in that area.
>the lowest training costs
No idea on this one - training my sorcerer is stupid easy and he's stupid strong, perhaps you're doing something wrong if you think this is the case.
>or the best utility spells
Versatility of attack is what Sorcerers are about. You are a pain inflicting magical nightmare, utility is not something that you really need to be overly concerned with.
>But since we're also LAST in all of those categories. This is a fail. It should be slightly higher, to at least put us until the 90s in total bolt AS bonuses.
While I honestly wouldn't argue with seeing it brought up to say 95 total - I would venture to say that 88 is still a fair assessment considering this is the first sorcerer driven bolt, and it is in the 11+ range (i.e. fancy/cool, not primary hunting).
>Not counting (Blessing) lores, sure. I'm still a bit fuzzy on how training up to 75 ranks in a secondary circle is considered a given at 100, but it is never assumed that a player will train in a single rank of lore by cap. Pures are expected to 2x spells, I imagine. Any pure who doesn't 1x their own circle should be considered a mutant.
Wizards would be an exception to this rule as we can very easily get away with 40 wizard spells and no more (unless you want to enchant). Barring that - show me a non-mutant that doesn't spend any remaining training points on spells, and I'll show you someone that doesn't know what they're doing. YES, the game is likely balanced around 2x spells - but nobody does just 2x spells.
The reason we are comparing these spells at cap and maximum spells is because they are variable bonuses. An AS difference of 10-15 does not break someone's ability to hunt. Even considering your precept of 2x spells... 52 wizard, 75 mne, 75 mje... max targeting, 51/63 elemental focus. So in total I have lost 12 AS off of my potential max just by doing ONLY 2x in spells. If that breaks my hunting ability, I have much bigger issues to concern myself with.
>Why not? Because we have the best CS spells? The goal is not to have sorcerers be gimpy with bolts.
>Since GS4 started bolting has been my primary focus.
Maybe you should have been a wizard and not a Sorcerer then. There's a reason you have options.
~Athias (Platinum)
| What would help to correct an imbalance between the pure professions is to allow the AS booster coming to sorcerers to effect Melee/Ranged AS as well, to offset 307 and 1109/1130's advantage in that regard. |
As one of the few weapon swinging sorcs around, I fully endorse this!
-Taakhooshi, and Me
For the Story of Taakhooshi:
http://www.gsguide.net/index.php?title=Taakhooshi
I almost agree with the 'puddle' theory, Athias! :)
The only thing I'd point out is that the game isn't really balanced between professions -- that's a part of what makes these types of conversations so. . . 'entertaining'? Rather, I'm of the opinion that the GMs try to make the 'balance' be struck between a profession and like level creatures, with a curve where some are ridiculously easy, the main are challenging, and the other end is very hard to down right impossible. Spells and skills are layered in to make that curve a reality for the profession.
As soon as you bring together two professions in a discussion, though, your 'puddle' appears. That's why we cannot get away with comparing something as straightforward as bolt AS between professions without considering the availability of select spells / skills.
I like what you did with the 1-10 and 11-20 range spells, but I also think that perspective is nudging up a bit presently, given the game lifecycle (20 is 1/5th of 100, so we're heading up to 1-20 profession spell list being 'core', in my view.)
One thing I'll say about V is that his love for the game, and for his chosen profession shines through in every argument he places. I don't agree with some (many?) of his points, but it's hard to downplay the stalwart path he's trudged over the last 12 or so years. At one time, sorcerers were preeminent and he (and to some degree, even I) would like to see some measure of that restored.
Still, even I wouldn't call focused implosion a great 'hunting' technique, if 'hunting' garners riches as well as experience in the main view. I view focused implosion as a leveler / emergency option, and wouldn't suggest to use it indiscriminately.
The life of the hybrid was meant to be challenging (read here, somewhat subpar) when compared to a non-hybrid pure. This is meant to be a trade-off for access to 'phenomenal cosmic power'. The problems started when we axed a lot of the sorcerer's power, enforced the hybrid standard and then went back and said that other hybrid professions didn't follow the same rules. Tough road to walk.
Sorry for the rambling thoughts -- but I think they're somewhat relevant to keep in mind as we trip through the 'puddles' of our interactions. :)
Doug
The only thing I'd point out is that the game isn't really balanced between professions -- that's a part of what makes these types of conversations so. . . 'entertaining'? Rather, I'm of the opinion that the GMs try to make the 'balance' be struck between a profession and like level creatures, with a curve where some are ridiculously easy, the main are challenging, and the other end is very hard to down right impossible. Spells and skills are layered in to make that curve a reality for the profession.
As soon as you bring together two professions in a discussion, though, your 'puddle' appears. That's why we cannot get away with comparing something as straightforward as bolt AS between professions without considering the availability of select spells / skills.
I like what you did with the 1-10 and 11-20 range spells, but I also think that perspective is nudging up a bit presently, given the game lifecycle (20 is 1/5th of 100, so we're heading up to 1-20 profession spell list being 'core', in my view.)
One thing I'll say about V is that his love for the game, and for his chosen profession shines through in every argument he places. I don't agree with some (many?) of his points, but it's hard to downplay the stalwart path he's trudged over the last 12 or so years. At one time, sorcerers were preeminent and he (and to some degree, even I) would like to see some measure of that restored.
Still, even I wouldn't call focused implosion a great 'hunting' technique, if 'hunting' garners riches as well as experience in the main view. I view focused implosion as a leveler / emergency option, and wouldn't suggest to use it indiscriminately.
The life of the hybrid was meant to be challenging (read here, somewhat subpar) when compared to a non-hybrid pure. This is meant to be a trade-off for access to 'phenomenal cosmic power'. The problems started when we axed a lot of the sorcerer's power, enforced the hybrid standard and then went back and said that other hybrid professions didn't follow the same rules. Tough road to walk.
Sorry for the rambling thoughts -- but I think they're somewhat relevant to keep in mind as we trip through the 'puddles' of our interactions. :)
Doug
>>One suggestion I made earlier in the balefire discussion (like, months and months ago) was for balefire to be able to bypass anti-magical barriers (vvrael/constructs/etc) by nature of it's demon fueled extra-planar power.
I did, too. I'm on the fence, somewhat, with vvrael. Magic is defined by elemental / spiritual / mental spheres. Anti-magic is anti-magic, and any singular expression or combination of the above would still fall under that anti-magic heading.
But as for the rest? I'd say absolutely! I might even go so far as to say that Balefire should have a modification to subvert EVP -- after all, if the magic is calling to your soul, it's a tad more likely to find a home, isn't it?
Probably too late for that suggestion, though.
Doug
I did, too. I'm on the fence, somewhat, with vvrael. Magic is defined by elemental / spiritual / mental spheres. Anti-magic is anti-magic, and any singular expression or combination of the above would still fall under that anti-magic heading.
But as for the rest? I'd say absolutely! I might even go so far as to say that Balefire should have a modification to subvert EVP -- after all, if the magic is calling to your soul, it's a tad more likely to find a home, isn't it?
Probably too late for that suggestion, though.
Doug
Hah. You do know that some of those "best" CS spells you name are scheduled to be deleted or merged they are so useless, right? We also lack lore-based damage increases for our primary damage spells. Quantity does not equal quality. If you disagree we can meet up in game and I will trade you 1,000 individual silvers for just 1! 1 mill note for as long as you think you're getting the better end of the deal.
>>As one of the few weapon swinging sorcs around, I fully endorse this!
Heh! As an archmagus waiting in the wings for this spell to drop on scrolls and show up in items, I fully endorse this, too! :)
But then, (and I'm pretty sure per 4 spell rank progression is a good estimate, especially since Strathspey said 38 at 101), I'd suggest it either be not available, or available like benediction -- small 'anyone' amount, bolstered by 'group' amount (if you can stand being next to a sorcerer) that also gets applied to the sorcerer, and supplemented by spell circle training for the sorcerer only.
Of course, I still prefer 'available', in all its forms. :) If I can just find a self-knowledge 740 item, I'll be set for life! That's my goal. . .
Doug
Heh! As an archmagus waiting in the wings for this spell to drop on scrolls and show up in items, I fully endorse this, too! :)
But then, (and I'm pretty sure per 4 spell rank progression is a good estimate, especially since Strathspey said 38 at 101), I'd suggest it either be not available, or available like benediction -- small 'anyone' amount, bolstered by 'group' amount (if you can stand being next to a sorcerer) that also gets applied to the sorcerer, and supplemented by spell circle training for the sorcerer only.
Of course, I still prefer 'available', in all its forms. :) If I can just find a self-knowledge 740 item, I'll be set for life! That's my goal. . .
Doug
>I like what you did with the 1-10 and 11-20 range spells, but I also think that perspective is nudging up a bit presently, given the game lifecycle (20 is 1/5th of 100, so we're heading up to 1-20 profession spell list being 'core', in my view.)
I really have a disagreement in the 1-20 being core. The reasoning is relatively simple - if you consider that the first 20 spells are 'core' then you're saying you have 60 core spells, and 15 non... that seems a bit lopsided. If you consider 1-10, you have 30 core spells, and 45 other spells it starts to make a bit more sense. Even though we both know that's the actual reality, it does seem to have been loosely the intent - and something I would personally like to see have a clearer delineation.
>The life of the hybrid was meant to be challenging (read here, somewhat subpar) when compared to a non-hybrid pure. This is meant to be a trade-off for access to 'phenomenal cosmic power'. The problems started when we axed a lot of the sorcerer's power, enforced the hybrid standard and then went back and said that other hybrid professions didn't follow the same rules. Tough road to walk.
I don't think that hybrid's being challenging was meant to be considered sub-par. The idea of being a challenge is that you do not excel in any particular area, therefore do not have your respective glass cannon, or Sherman tank.
If I fight something as a wizard, I run into like-level creatures that I can completely obliterate (because they are weak to elemental spells), or ones that become a serious issue to me because I have a very difficult time with. I have the exact same issue with my cleric with some being extremely easy, others being extremely hard.
As a sorcerer I have never seen that issue - Everything is basically moderately difficult, no major fluctuations like you would see as a wizard/cleric (no idea on empath, but I would assume it's similar). Yes, you could consider this to be 'subpar', or you can look at it as being moderately effective against everything, without any particular strengths. I can see your viewpoint, I just personally wouldn't call it subpar.
~Athias (Platinum)
I really have a disagreement in the 1-20 being core. The reasoning is relatively simple - if you consider that the first 20 spells are 'core' then you're saying you have 60 core spells, and 15 non... that seems a bit lopsided. If you consider 1-10, you have 30 core spells, and 45 other spells it starts to make a bit more sense. Even though we both know that's the actual reality, it does seem to have been loosely the intent - and something I would personally like to see have a clearer delineation.
>The life of the hybrid was meant to be challenging (read here, somewhat subpar) when compared to a non-hybrid pure. This is meant to be a trade-off for access to 'phenomenal cosmic power'. The problems started when we axed a lot of the sorcerer's power, enforced the hybrid standard and then went back and said that other hybrid professions didn't follow the same rules. Tough road to walk.
I don't think that hybrid's being challenging was meant to be considered sub-par. The idea of being a challenge is that you do not excel in any particular area, therefore do not have your respective glass cannon, or Sherman tank.
If I fight something as a wizard, I run into like-level creatures that I can completely obliterate (because they are weak to elemental spells), or ones that become a serious issue to me because I have a very difficult time with. I have the exact same issue with my cleric with some being extremely easy, others being extremely hard.
As a sorcerer I have never seen that issue - Everything is basically moderately difficult, no major fluctuations like you would see as a wizard/cleric (no idea on empath, but I would assume it's similar). Yes, you could consider this to be 'subpar', or you can look at it as being moderately effective against everything, without any particular strengths. I can see your viewpoint, I just personally wouldn't call it subpar.
~Athias (Platinum)
Just for clarification, limited my 1-20 to only profession based list (700's here, 900's wizard, etc). I do agree 1-10 is reasonable for minor / major lists. Which narrows it to 40 spells, rather than 60.
I appreciate your perspective on the tank. :) By subpar, I meant that training skill costs were usually a bit higher, reflective of the difficulty of modifying mainstream skills for the non-hybrid pure to account for two magical circles. I still live under (suffer from?) the Rolemaster view in that perspective. I liked it, a lot.
Just means that at like level, fewer ranks would be learned in total by the hybrid -- which in a capped open training system is nothing -- but does count all the way up to 100 (plus a bit) levels. The trade off was to be that the power lined up to be greater at like ranks and / or appeared earlier in terms of ranks training required. This is part of what I think we might be missing. Some suggest training skill point cost reductions to get this premise back -- I'm on the side of amping down the total requirements to make more sense.
That's all.
Doug
I appreciate your perspective on the tank. :) By subpar, I meant that training skill costs were usually a bit higher, reflective of the difficulty of modifying mainstream skills for the non-hybrid pure to account for two magical circles. I still live under (suffer from?) the Rolemaster view in that perspective. I liked it, a lot.
Just means that at like level, fewer ranks would be learned in total by the hybrid -- which in a capped open training system is nothing -- but does count all the way up to 100 (plus a bit) levels. The trade off was to be that the power lined up to be greater at like ranks and / or appeared earlier in terms of ranks training required. This is part of what I think we might be missing. Some suggest training skill point cost reductions to get this premise back -- I'm on the side of amping down the total requirements to make more sense.
That's all.
Doug
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRoss
+50 from 425 and +38 from the new spell is greater than the +35 from 307 and +40 from 211 and 215.
Clerics get a +51 AS bonus from 307 (base +5 with +1 per two ranks above 307) at 100 cleric ranks for a total of 91 with 211 and 215. Although he (Strathspey) hasn't given the details, it looks like the sorcerer bolt AS bonus will be a base of +10 from spell 716 and + 1 per three sorcerer ranks above 716 capped at +38.
Sorcerers: +88 (716?, 425)
Clerics: +91 (211, 215, 307)
Empaths: + 95 (211, 215, 1130)
Wizards: +113 (513, 425)
These do not include the additional bonus that clerics and empaths gain from training Spiritual Lore, Blessings (+1 per 10 ranks capped at +20 with 200 ranks).
A level 30 comparison:
Cleric w/30 cleric and 15 MjS: +57
Empath w/ 30 empath and 15 MjS: +60
Wizard w/ 25 MnE and 20 MjE: +48
Sorcerer w/ 30 sorcerer and 25 MnE: +39
Clerics and empaths only require 45 spell ranks to achieve these numbers, while wizards and sorcerers would need 55 ranks.
Mark
X-posted
Originally Posted by WRoss
+50 from 425 and +38 from the new spell is greater than the +35 from 307 and +40 from 211 and 215.
Clerics get a +51 AS bonus from 307 (base +5 with +1 per two ranks above 307) at 100 cleric ranks for a total of 91 with 211 and 215. Although he (Strathspey) hasn't given the details, it looks like the sorcerer bolt AS bonus will be a base of +10 from spell 716 and + 1 per three sorcerer ranks above 716 capped at +38.
Sorcerers: +88 (716?, 425)
Clerics: +91 (211, 215, 307)
Empaths: + 95 (211, 215, 1130)
Wizards: +113 (513, 425)
These do not include the additional bonus that clerics and empaths gain from training Spiritual Lore, Blessings (+1 per 10 ranks capped at +20 with 200 ranks).
A level 30 comparison:
Cleric w/30 cleric and 15 MjS: +57
Empath w/ 30 empath and 15 MjS: +60
Wizard w/ 25 MnE and 20 MjE: +48
Sorcerer w/ 30 sorcerer and 25 MnE: +39
Clerics and empaths only require 45 spell ranks to achieve these numbers, while wizards and sorcerers would need 55 ranks.
Mark
X-posted
Um. . . wow. Sorry, E.
I guess I'll address in snippets:
"We're still last" -- Raw AS isn't the only means of defining power, and 15 points of the 'delta' comes from what is arguably one of the top 3 most easily gained AS boosters in the game (setting aside the Rift, for the nonce).
"we are not given a lore-based means to boost our gains" -- I missed that memo! Unless you're focused only on AS, in which case, raw AS isn't the only means of defining power, and 15 points. . .
"Why is a new ability sticking with the old standard" -- As much as I'd like to see certain new abilities (like the demon varied crits, etc) I do feel compelled to point out that bolt / ball casting is in fact not a new ability.
"Why not allow for growth of our Bolt AS as Everyone else already has, or will have" -- This has several dimensions, so I can only ask you to clarify.
But in short, I am left believing from these comments that the number (+38) isn't satisfactory. What number would be?
In the end, my point that 716 should not be where the AS booster is camped is very simple. It comes too late, keeps sorcerers at too great a deficit at 15 trainings, and really needs to be lower to be effective. 307, 211, 513 and 215 all occur before this, and somewhere under the 710 mark is where I think this should be. The burden that is hybrid pure doesn't mean specialized spells need to be XX levels after other pures.
That's my main point.
Doug
I guess I'll address in snippets:
"We're still last" -- Raw AS isn't the only means of defining power, and 15 points of the 'delta' comes from what is arguably one of the top 3 most easily gained AS boosters in the game (setting aside the Rift, for the nonce).
"we are not given a lore-based means to boost our gains" -- I missed that memo! Unless you're focused only on AS, in which case, raw AS isn't the only means of defining power, and 15 points. . .
"Why is a new ability sticking with the old standard" -- As much as I'd like to see certain new abilities (like the demon varied crits, etc) I do feel compelled to point out that bolt / ball casting is in fact not a new ability.
"Why not allow for growth of our Bolt AS as Everyone else already has, or will have" -- This has several dimensions, so I can only ask you to clarify.
But in short, I am left believing from these comments that the number (+38) isn't satisfactory. What number would be?
In the end, my point that 716 should not be where the AS booster is camped is very simple. It comes too late, keeps sorcerers at too great a deficit at 15 trainings, and really needs to be lower to be effective. 307, 211, 513 and 215 all occur before this, and somewhere under the 710 mark is where I think this should be. The burden that is hybrid pure doesn't mean specialized spells need to be XX levels after other pures.
That's my main point.
Doug
Ah. I see. Your view is that you don't don't care we're last, you don't care that we don't have a way to improve upon our bolt AS like other pure profession. Got it, excuse me if such revalations of you not caring whether or not we get our fair share does not come as a shock.
What would be fair? Whatever the gains via spiritual lore is to 215. 15, you said? SOUNDS GOOD TO ME! Have us able to gain the same amount of AS for the same amount of lore/TPs. We would still be less than Clerics in the end, which makes because...well it just does, because power comes in many forms and blah blah blah blah.
Whatever the reasoning, we should be allowed to raise our bolt AS via lore expenditure. The argument against it is, "Well, it isn't THAT big of a deal." Good. Great, then you wont care, and subsequently argue against such improvements.
P.S.
If they handed each and every sorcerer now and until the end of GS an unlimited use no cost 211 item, then you could continue to use it in your arguments without looking silly. Until then, all professions should be considered to have unlimited strength 509, disks 511, 601, etc etc. They're all available off the shelf!
What would be fair? Whatever the gains via spiritual lore is to 215. 15, you said? SOUNDS GOOD TO ME! Have us able to gain the same amount of AS for the same amount of lore/TPs. We would still be less than Clerics in the end, which makes because...well it just does, because power comes in many forms and blah blah blah blah.
Whatever the reasoning, we should be allowed to raise our bolt AS via lore expenditure. The argument against it is, "Well, it isn't THAT big of a deal." Good. Great, then you wont care, and subsequently argue against such improvements.
P.S.
If they handed each and every sorcerer now and until the end of GS an unlimited use no cost 211 item, then you could continue to use it in your arguments without looking silly. Until then, all professions should be considered to have unlimited strength 509, disks 511, 601, etc etc. They're all available off the shelf!
I, for one, am perfectly happy with an AS boost of +38 at 100 sorc base ranks.
What I would also like to see is that AS boost (or a portion of it, at least, say, the base +10) applies to melee and ranged.
Additionally, if demon lore ups the DF of 713, then it would be nice if necro lore upped the AS boost, similar to blessing lore. Or vice versa, whichever way it is.
To me, both of those would be really nice to haves.
-Taakhooshi, and Me
For the Story of Taakhooshi:
http://www.gsguide.net/index.php?title=Taakhooshi
What I would also like to see is that AS boost (or a portion of it, at least, say, the base +10) applies to melee and ranged.
Additionally, if demon lore ups the DF of 713, then it would be nice if necro lore upped the AS boost, similar to blessing lore. Or vice versa, whichever way it is.
To me, both of those would be really nice to haves.
-Taakhooshi, and Me
For the Story of Taakhooshi:
http://www.gsguide.net/index.php?title=Taakhooshi
Ah, I see.
I don't believe I said . . .I will say now, since you brought it up with my post tied to it that 215 goes up to +20 more based on lore training. But - the same amount of AS for the "same amount of lore / TP" can't happen under the current systems -- since the cost of lores is different. I'd propose the increase for a lower lore threshold, personally, if this were an accepted solution. I certainly hope that this doesn't come as a surprise.
And I don't know that it is not an accepted solution-- we haven't been told how this bonus distributes, yet, other than it appears to be spell rank based, and limited to +38. Strong evidence, but hardly conclusive and perhaps open to some well-reasoned changes at this point (since as far as I know, this spell isn't yet implemented).
As to the rest of it -- you're sadly mistaken about the degree to which I care. I asked a question because I wanted an answer, sincerely, and I could think of few better positioned to reason a strong response. I'm not sure what that answer is, but now -- it no longer is as interesting to me what your answer is.
Where my apathy starts to kick in is when primary profession players / agents engage in cynicism and outright belittling because they don't like the reasoning they are seeing. It's the classic intersection curve at that point.
On the plus side, though, I'll happily accept your PS, just as soon as one of those spells adds to bolt / ball AS resolution. Otherwise, I count that as noise (noise which in fact I agree with, for those very reasons, but noise in this conversation, none-the-less). I think it's inaccurate to bring those spells up in this context, myself, but I wouldn't call the supporting reasoning 'silly'. That's just a might personal and could be misinterpreted. I just think that spells dealing with bolt AS need to be brought into this context, that's all.
Irony and jest aside, for my part I'm sorry if my posts sent you down this path. I hate apathy in all its forms and had been enjoying the discourse, here.
Doug
I don't believe I said . . .I will say now, since you brought it up with my post tied to it that 215 goes up to +20 more based on lore training. But - the same amount of AS for the "same amount of lore / TP" can't happen under the current systems -- since the cost of lores is different. I'd propose the increase for a lower lore threshold, personally, if this were an accepted solution. I certainly hope that this doesn't come as a surprise.
And I don't know that it is not an accepted solution-- we haven't been told how this bonus distributes, yet, other than it appears to be spell rank based, and limited to +38. Strong evidence, but hardly conclusive and perhaps open to some well-reasoned changes at this point (since as far as I know, this spell isn't yet implemented).
As to the rest of it -- you're sadly mistaken about the degree to which I care. I asked a question because I wanted an answer, sincerely, and I could think of few better positioned to reason a strong response. I'm not sure what that answer is, but now -- it no longer is as interesting to me what your answer is.
Where my apathy starts to kick in is when primary profession players / agents engage in cynicism and outright belittling because they don't like the reasoning they are seeing. It's the classic intersection curve at that point.
On the plus side, though, I'll happily accept your PS, just as soon as one of those spells adds to bolt / ball AS resolution. Otherwise, I count that as noise (noise which in fact I agree with, for those very reasons, but noise in this conversation, none-the-less). I think it's inaccurate to bring those spells up in this context, myself, but I wouldn't call the supporting reasoning 'silly'. That's just a might personal and could be misinterpreted. I just think that spells dealing with bolt AS need to be brought into this context, that's all.
Irony and jest aside, for my part I'm sorry if my posts sent you down this path. I hate apathy in all its forms and had been enjoying the discourse, here.
Doug
A few disclaimers from a very young and inexperienced sorcerer. My comments can only be shallow in comparison to the rest of this thread, but looking through what I consider to be unjaded, naive and somewhat (I hope) pure eyes, here are my 2 cents:
The entire draw of Sorcerers to me was that they were always supposed to be the darkest, loneliest and by far most difficult of all the classes to play. I used to believe that this of course was in exchange for pure, unchallengeable power in the long run. Achieving this goal should be very difficult - so difficult that not many want to embrace the challenge. I personally dont mind the highest TPs in the game, and our boost spell on AS at 716 I think is perfect. I dont want sorcery to be easy in the beginning...make it clearly harder than all other classes in fact.
I dont want choosing the path of sorcery to be easy or approachable, just make it worth all of the extra pain in the long run. As I get familiar with the game now, it seems that all of the mystique and awe of sorcery is gone. I personally find leveling a sorcerer from 0-26 (my current level) very easy and Im sure the other classes are even easier. I wouldnt be opposed to making it more difficult for more ending power.
My brain was spinning reading all of this - so thank you for reading my rambling, unorganized thoughts that contributed virtually nothing to the topic at hand. This is my attempt at getting involved and the posts will get more coherent as time goes by Im sure.
The entire draw of Sorcerers to me was that they were always supposed to be the darkest, loneliest and by far most difficult of all the classes to play. I used to believe that this of course was in exchange for pure, unchallengeable power in the long run. Achieving this goal should be very difficult - so difficult that not many want to embrace the challenge. I personally dont mind the highest TPs in the game, and our boost spell on AS at 716 I think is perfect. I dont want sorcery to be easy in the beginning...make it clearly harder than all other classes in fact.
I dont want choosing the path of sorcery to be easy or approachable, just make it worth all of the extra pain in the long run. As I get familiar with the game now, it seems that all of the mystique and awe of sorcery is gone. I personally find leveling a sorcerer from 0-26 (my current level) very easy and Im sure the other classes are even easier. I wouldnt be opposed to making it more difficult for more ending power.
My brain was spinning reading all of this - so thank you for reading my rambling, unorganized thoughts that contributed virtually nothing to the topic at hand. This is my attempt at getting involved and the posts will get more coherent as time goes by Im sure.
>>thank you for reading my rambling, unorganized thoughts that contributed virtually nothing to the topic at hand.
Bah! Post more!!
I suffer sometimes from losing this exact perspective. Fond memories aren't always good replacements for current experiences nor fresh perspectives!
Moar, pleeze!
Doug
Bah! Post more!!
I suffer sometimes from losing this exact perspective. Fond memories aren't always good replacements for current experiences nor fresh perspectives!
Moar, pleeze!
Doug
I've no problems with sorcery being difficult and expensive. What I DO have problems with is when you literally CANNOT upgrade yourself regardless of how many TPs you have. Right now, we have the lowest bolt AS possible, with or without lores, and this is based off of us being 2.15ish X spells, when everyone else is achieving these numbers with LESS than 2x in spells.
That isn't a dark and lonely road. That is the shaft, which I wont go into detail describing.
That isn't a dark and lonely road. That is the shaft, which I wont go into detail describing.
You really want to argue with me about sorcery Athias as if I've not studied the matter in depth? For years? Seriously? Don't blame me if you don't feel good about yourself after this. You come into our folder here and do this you're kinda asking for it.
>You mean to tell me that being able to focus implode hunt darn near anything isn't good enough for a 'first place' in something?
FI is extremely level based, leaves no treasure, is mana intensive, and many critters are downright immune to it. By level based I mean it sucks against like level. You need 5-10 levels on your target for it to be good, and for mana effectiveness it isn't there. Even 1115, which also obliterates targets, is kind enough to leave treasure. I would trade FI for a spell line Cone or Boneshatter in a heartbeat. I use it while hunting probably only about 1% of the time.
You would know this if you weren't apparently woefully uneducated about the sorcerer profession.
>701, 702, 703, 705, 706, 708, 711, 713, 715, 716, 718, 719... Don't even try to pretend you don't have the best CS spells.
I'm not pretending, I'm stating facts. Sorcerer attack spells are not adequately lore modified. That is a fact. Because of this their power is much much weaker compared to other spells at cap. Point of fact, BARDS have the best CS spells, don't believe me, ask Gnimble. Empaths are second. Boneshatter is better than Dark Catalyst, and I would in fact trade 719 for 1106. I often hunt a capped empath and a capped sorcerer together, I can't let the empath attack first because the risk of an instant kill is too great. Immolation can also achieve far far far greater abilities than DC can thanks to the better lore implementation. 705 isn't even lore modified, nor is 702.
The rest of the spells you list are niche novelty spells. We have flavor, yes, but flavor does not mean function.
You would know this if you weren't apparently woefully uneducated about the sorcerer profession.
>Wizards don't have crap either - unless you count enchanting which requires a good 25 days and a major to get any decent experience out of it. Sure Empaths/Clerics do - but you're not alone in that area.
So maybe we're tied for last, but that is still last. And you can't disregard enchanting so easily. People leveled doing nothing but sub 4x enchant projects in the past (I've done it myself). You would know this if you weren't apparently woefully uneducated about the wizard and sorcerer professions.
>No idea on this one - training my sorcerer is stupid easy and he's stupid strong, perhaps you're doing something wrong if you think this is the case.
Sorcerer training costs are significantly out of wack. We have the highest physical training costs of all pures, we have the highest lore training costs of all pures. Our magic costs are not low enough to compensate. In fact, in the only field in which we're not last, or tied in last, is in non-lore magical training costs (HP/SA/MIU/AS) where we're second to last (tied with empaths). We're first in no category of skill training costs, the only pure profession with that honor.
This isn't subjective, this is all objective basic arithmetic, you can read more on training costs here:
http://www.virilneus.com/blog/2009/05/14/sorcerer-training-costs/
Of course, you'll notice the date on that blog post is 2009, and that is just the date I wrote it all down in depth, it had been discusseed as a problem pretty much ever since GS4 came out. You would also know this if you were not woefully uneducated about the sorcerer profession.
>Versatility of attack is what Sorcerers are about. You are a pain inflicting magical nightmare, utility is not something that you really need to be overly concerned with.
We were told a similar story in GS3, we were masters of destruction so didn't need utility. But we're not masters of destruction, our attack spells are all subpar, mostly unloremodified. Sorcerers are good at torture and griefing. The next time you get an experience bonus for killing a critter slower, please let me know. Generally half of our spells only see the light of day for CvC.
>The reason we are comparing these spells at cap and maximum spells is because they are variable bonuses. An AS difference of 10-15 does not break someone's ability to hunt. Even considering your precept of 2x spells... 52 wizard, 75 mne, 75 mje... max targeting, 51/63 elemental focus. So in total I have lost 12 AS off of my potential max just by doing ONLY 2x in spells. If that breaks my hunting ability, I have much bigger issues to concern myself with.
Oh good. Athias just volunteered to have 513 nerfed by removing 12 AS from it's max. I'm not sure your fellow wizards will appreciate your endeavor though Athias. If it isn't a big deal for us to NOT have it, it certainly can't be a big deal for you to KEEP it, can it? Do as I say, not as I do?
>Maybe you should have been a wizard and not a Sorcerer then. There's a reason you have options.
I rolled up my sorcerer over 15 years ago. Maybe I don't want to start over? Maybe I simply want balance? Especially since our spell circle has been gutted over the years with clones of our supposedly defining spells dolled out to other pures. There was a time when we were the best CS hunters, and possibly masters of destruction, but that was before all the nerfs and neglect. But sure, give us old style DC back, and gank the DC-clones given to Empaths, Wizards, and Clerics, and we'll be happy as a clam. Are you volunteering to give up immolation? Make wizards stick to bolting? It is supposed to be your knitting afterall, right?
>You mean to tell me that being able to focus implode hunt darn near anything isn't good enough for a 'first place' in something?
FI is extremely level based, leaves no treasure, is mana intensive, and many critters are downright immune to it. By level based I mean it sucks against like level. You need 5-10 levels on your target for it to be good, and for mana effectiveness it isn't there. Even 1115, which also obliterates targets, is kind enough to leave treasure. I would trade FI for a spell line Cone or Boneshatter in a heartbeat. I use it while hunting probably only about 1% of the time.
You would know this if you weren't apparently woefully uneducated about the sorcerer profession.
>701, 702, 703, 705, 706, 708, 711, 713, 715, 716, 718, 719... Don't even try to pretend you don't have the best CS spells.
I'm not pretending, I'm stating facts. Sorcerer attack spells are not adequately lore modified. That is a fact. Because of this their power is much much weaker compared to other spells at cap. Point of fact, BARDS have the best CS spells, don't believe me, ask Gnimble. Empaths are second. Boneshatter is better than Dark Catalyst, and I would in fact trade 719 for 1106. I often hunt a capped empath and a capped sorcerer together, I can't let the empath attack first because the risk of an instant kill is too great. Immolation can also achieve far far far greater abilities than DC can thanks to the better lore implementation. 705 isn't even lore modified, nor is 702.
The rest of the spells you list are niche novelty spells. We have flavor, yes, but flavor does not mean function.
You would know this if you weren't apparently woefully uneducated about the sorcerer profession.
>Wizards don't have crap either - unless you count enchanting which requires a good 25 days and a major to get any decent experience out of it. Sure Empaths/Clerics do - but you're not alone in that area.
So maybe we're tied for last, but that is still last. And you can't disregard enchanting so easily. People leveled doing nothing but sub 4x enchant projects in the past (I've done it myself). You would know this if you weren't apparently woefully uneducated about the wizard and sorcerer professions.
>No idea on this one - training my sorcerer is stupid easy and he's stupid strong, perhaps you're doing something wrong if you think this is the case.
Sorcerer training costs are significantly out of wack. We have the highest physical training costs of all pures, we have the highest lore training costs of all pures. Our magic costs are not low enough to compensate. In fact, in the only field in which we're not last, or tied in last, is in non-lore magical training costs (HP/SA/MIU/AS) where we're second to last (tied with empaths). We're first in no category of skill training costs, the only pure profession with that honor.
This isn't subjective, this is all objective basic arithmetic, you can read more on training costs here:
http://www.virilneus.com/blog/2009/05/14/sorcerer-training-costs/
Of course, you'll notice the date on that blog post is 2009, and that is just the date I wrote it all down in depth, it had been discusseed as a problem pretty much ever since GS4 came out. You would also know this if you were not woefully uneducated about the sorcerer profession.
>Versatility of attack is what Sorcerers are about. You are a pain inflicting magical nightmare, utility is not something that you really need to be overly concerned with.
We were told a similar story in GS3, we were masters of destruction so didn't need utility. But we're not masters of destruction, our attack spells are all subpar, mostly unloremodified. Sorcerers are good at torture and griefing. The next time you get an experience bonus for killing a critter slower, please let me know. Generally half of our spells only see the light of day for CvC.
>The reason we are comparing these spells at cap and maximum spells is because they are variable bonuses. An AS difference of 10-15 does not break someone's ability to hunt. Even considering your precept of 2x spells... 52 wizard, 75 mne, 75 mje... max targeting, 51/63 elemental focus. So in total I have lost 12 AS off of my potential max just by doing ONLY 2x in spells. If that breaks my hunting ability, I have much bigger issues to concern myself with.
Oh good. Athias just volunteered to have 513 nerfed by removing 12 AS from it's max. I'm not sure your fellow wizards will appreciate your endeavor though Athias. If it isn't a big deal for us to NOT have it, it certainly can't be a big deal for you to KEEP it, can it? Do as I say, not as I do?
>Maybe you should have been a wizard and not a Sorcerer then. There's a reason you have options.
I rolled up my sorcerer over 15 years ago. Maybe I don't want to start over? Maybe I simply want balance? Especially since our spell circle has been gutted over the years with clones of our supposedly defining spells dolled out to other pures. There was a time when we were the best CS hunters, and possibly masters of destruction, but that was before all the nerfs and neglect. But sure, give us old style DC back, and gank the DC-clones given to Empaths, Wizards, and Clerics, and we'll be happy as a clam. Are you volunteering to give up immolation? Make wizards stick to bolting? It is supposed to be your knitting afterall, right?
Evarin - I agree completely with what you are saying. I dont think it is right that at the peak of power this should be the case at all. It is hard for me to stomach the thought of an Empath at peak power being more powerful than a Sorcerer at peak power in any arena...to the point of being just silly.
What you are saying sort of falls in line with my perspective anyway - make me pay dearly early on (like no other class), but reward me for it later (like no other class). I always thought that is what sorcery was all about. It seems the reward me later part is what is lacking.
What you are saying sort of falls in line with my perspective anyway - make me pay dearly early on (like no other class), but reward me for it later (like no other class). I always thought that is what sorcery was all about. It seems the reward me later part is what is lacking.
oh, and one more thing athias... if we're so great and powerful, why are we the LEAST popular profession of the original ones?
who prof wiz
Brave Adventurers Questing:
Sethwyn Aharil Clammeldish Quellum
Sydren Tdem Phates Ertlekcin
Miabella Kestrick Echonar Grundhal
Vykarin Maynurd Nardypoo Othglas
Prudence Decimate Dranza Boora
Darnog Alarinn Trissah Loten
Augustis Raggler Xolstice Valorean
Ptahre Kasih Nalatia Khistian
Ebbthur Delsa Zharaya Zazim
Darknick Orisis Bolly Tanglefeets
Snowfoxx Eliaku Aske Csalron
Maerdoriom Fleurs Vesner Certain
Arzok Inurtia Airend Svetoslav
Queti Aurla Jaycn Thunderbolt
Niqua Ewayn Permo Krystala
Grolschin Chillwind Tomorir Kranar
Drigler Grimfield
Total: 66
who prof sorc
Brave Adventurers Questing:
Razzyne Cosannie Murkshev Aratmar
Seoloron Jurporia Suntzhu Darqwolf
Mistros Virilneus Chuds Zaramon
Draithe Shalaora Siphere
Total: 15
As of right now, the ONLY profession with less people online than sorcerers, are paladins, and only by 1 person.
That is the free market readout of profession power. 400% more people want to be wizards than want to be sorcerers. Why could that be?
who prof wiz
Brave Adventurers Questing:
Sethwyn Aharil Clammeldish Quellum
Sydren Tdem Phates Ertlekcin
Miabella Kestrick Echonar Grundhal
Vykarin Maynurd Nardypoo Othglas
Prudence Decimate Dranza Boora
Darnog Alarinn Trissah Loten
Augustis Raggler Xolstice Valorean
Ptahre Kasih Nalatia Khistian
Ebbthur Delsa Zharaya Zazim
Darknick Orisis Bolly Tanglefeets
Snowfoxx Eliaku Aske Csalron
Maerdoriom Fleurs Vesner Certain
Arzok Inurtia Airend Svetoslav
Queti Aurla Jaycn Thunderbolt
Niqua Ewayn Permo Krystala
Grolschin Chillwind Tomorir Kranar
Drigler Grimfield
Total: 66
who prof sorc
Brave Adventurers Questing:
Razzyne Cosannie Murkshev Aratmar
Seoloron Jurporia Suntzhu Darqwolf
Mistros Virilneus Chuds Zaramon
Draithe Shalaora Siphere
Total: 15
As of right now, the ONLY profession with less people online than sorcerers, are paladins, and only by 1 person.
That is the free market readout of profession power. 400% more people want to be wizards than want to be sorcerers. Why could that be?
