Previous Thread
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
When Hot Summer Nights Elemental Review was coming along I started up a spreadsheet that I stopped playing with when more spells were to be added at a later date, but have since had some renewed interest and finished most of it off, anyway while doing that project I came across an idea.
Why do bolts have diminishing returns for damage the higher the lore goes? Why isn't that reversed? Shouldn't higher lores=higher bonus? One of the the things Wizard lack is specialists and that group gets abused by the way lores currently work. Not only are they missing out on tons of low end boost from the other elemental lores but they get less from the lore that they have specialized in. To this I would also like to see Bonus from lore ranks from 51-100 made 1.5 times better 101-150 2 times better, and 151+ 2.5 times better
Example for a 906 Bolt
1-50 .001 per rank
51-100 .001 per two ranks Would be .0015 every two ranks
101+ .001 per four ranks Would be .002 And 151+ would be .0025 every Four ranks
Example for a CS spell 519
Ranks
12, 16, 22, 30, 40 give 1 percent instant kill. Have ranks 52,66, 82, 100 give 1.5 percent instant kill. Have Ranks 120, 142 give 2 percent instant klll. Have ranks 166, 192, 220, 250 give 2.5 percent instant kill.
The end difference is
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.5, 8, 9.5, 11, 13, 15, 17.5, 20, 22.5, 25 percent
instead of
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 percent.
Now while this doesn't address the 4 lore breakup I think this is one thing that would be a boon to specialist and could be one of the reasons they would choose to not be all around wizards.
GBB
It's detailed in my write up, but I wouldn't want to be a specialist. Specialists were actually what wizards who primarily used 519 used to be.
Lores are supposed to have diminishing returns, and do for every type of lore, because you're supposed to choose to train in some other lores at some point. Otherwise, there's only one logical choice to make, and that's to become the one trick pony.
For people who keep asking this, I'd like you to consider what you're asking for. Most capped creatures have some type of elemental immunity. Elemental spells by definition don't work against a subset of creatures already. Would you really want to be boxed into one type? That's what old 519 used to do. It's a restriction that doesn't apply to 317.
Lores are supposed to have diminishing returns, and do for every type of lore, because you're supposed to choose to train in some other lores at some point. Otherwise, there's only one logical choice to make, and that's to become the one trick pony.
For people who keep asking this, I'd like you to consider what you're asking for. Most capped creatures have some type of elemental immunity. Elemental spells by definition don't work against a subset of creatures already. Would you really want to be boxed into one type? That's what old 519 used to do. It's a restriction that doesn't apply to 317.
"It's detailed in my write up, but I wouldn't want to be a specialist. Specialists were actually what wizards who primarily used 519 used to be.-LadyFleurs"
Some people might want to be and it has been stated that something was trying to be formulated for those who do in fact want to be specialists.
"For people who keep asking this, I'd like you to consider what you're asking for. Most capped creatures have some type of elemental immunity. Elemental spells by definition don't work against a subset of creatures already. Would you really want to be boxed into one type? That's what old 519 used to do. It's a restriction that doesn't apply to 317.-LadyFleyrs"
Since I do not think wizards will suddenly become non elemental casters I would consider this a choice that will be beneficial in some areas and not in others. IF there are to be specialists and that is part of the plan then they should have benefits that make them desirable. If Dev does not want specialists then continue on as before.
If wizard spells all move to the Cone of Elements model (as you and I have and others have advocated) then you are either going to be great at one thing or good at 3 things, but the choice of ok at 3 elements and a little better than ok at 1 element is not my idea of how things should be.
I think there should be specialists, and those that are should receive substantial benefits for each element. There should be all around wizards and they should be have advantages over the specialists, and there should be wizards that do fine with no lores at all because the spells work well enough without them until they start hunting scatter/nelemar 2nd floor, confluence hot side etc.
GBB
Some people might want to be and it has been stated that something was trying to be formulated for those who do in fact want to be specialists.
"For people who keep asking this, I'd like you to consider what you're asking for. Most capped creatures have some type of elemental immunity. Elemental spells by definition don't work against a subset of creatures already. Would you really want to be boxed into one type? That's what old 519 used to do. It's a restriction that doesn't apply to 317.-LadyFleyrs"
Since I do not think wizards will suddenly become non elemental casters I would consider this a choice that will be beneficial in some areas and not in others. IF there are to be specialists and that is part of the plan then they should have benefits that make them desirable. If Dev does not want specialists then continue on as before.
If wizard spells all move to the Cone of Elements model (as you and I have and others have advocated) then you are either going to be great at one thing or good at 3 things, but the choice of ok at 3 elements and a little better than ok at 1 element is not my idea of how things should be.
I think there should be specialists, and those that are should receive substantial benefits for each element. There should be all around wizards and they should be have advantages over the specialists, and there should be wizards that do fine with no lores at all because the spells work well enough without them until they start hunting scatter/nelemar 2nd floor, confluence hot side etc.
GBB
>If wizard spells all move to the Cone of Elements model (as you and I have and others have advocated) then you are either going to be great at one thing or good at 3 things, but the choice of ok at 3 elements and a little better than ok at 1 element is not my idea of how things should be.
That's not what I suggested at all. I would like there to be different flavors of mages based on attunement and lores, but ideally lores should also be able to unlock the other elements' version of 519, for example. Even if you don't go all in on one lore though, you should still get some use out of it, though of course you should get a bonus to be great due to your attunement. What I don't think should happen, by the definition of "specialist" is that you need 202 ranks in a single lore for it to be great. That's what old 519 used to be and Dev told us we were a one-trick pony, which is partly why it was removed.
For the spiritual pures, you also don't need 202 ranks of a SL for the spell to be great. This allows spiritual pures the option of enjoying several offensive spells that are great. I want to be like the spiritualists and enjoy having my cake and eating it, too.
So right now, if you're a water mage, you pretty significantly cripple yourself offensively. That's what I don't think should happen. You should have powerful offensive water-based 519, but still be able to unlock fire 519, etc. Your complete opposite element just wouldn't be as effective as the one you're attuned to, but you wouldn't be cripppled either.
I don't agree that 202 ranks of any lore should be required, and it isn't for lores and spells for spiritual pures, because it should be encouraged for people to at least try out and enjoy some of every type of spell. Not to eliminate entire spells from their arsenal of use, the way 504 now doesn't work at all if you have no air lore. If it was designated a crowd control spell but had different effects based on the type of lore, that's what I'm looking for and what I think would add flavor and interesting options to gameplay that doesn't force every wizard to be the same or hunt the same way.
That's not what I suggested at all. I would like there to be different flavors of mages based on attunement and lores, but ideally lores should also be able to unlock the other elements' version of 519, for example. Even if you don't go all in on one lore though, you should still get some use out of it, though of course you should get a bonus to be great due to your attunement. What I don't think should happen, by the definition of "specialist" is that you need 202 ranks in a single lore for it to be great. That's what old 519 used to be and Dev told us we were a one-trick pony, which is partly why it was removed.
For the spiritual pures, you also don't need 202 ranks of a SL for the spell to be great. This allows spiritual pures the option of enjoying several offensive spells that are great. I want to be like the spiritualists and enjoy having my cake and eating it, too.
So right now, if you're a water mage, you pretty significantly cripple yourself offensively. That's what I don't think should happen. You should have powerful offensive water-based 519, but still be able to unlock fire 519, etc. Your complete opposite element just wouldn't be as effective as the one you're attuned to, but you wouldn't be cripppled either.
I don't agree that 202 ranks of any lore should be required, and it isn't for lores and spells for spiritual pures, because it should be encouraged for people to at least try out and enjoy some of every type of spell. Not to eliminate entire spells from their arsenal of use, the way 504 now doesn't work at all if you have no air lore. If it was designated a crowd control spell but had different effects based on the type of lore, that's what I'm looking for and what I think would add flavor and interesting options to gameplay that doesn't force every wizard to be the same or hunt the same way.
>Lores are supposed to have diminishing returns, and do for every type of lore, because you're supposed to choose to train in some other lores at some point. Otherwise, there's only one logical choice to make, and that's to become the one trick pony.
There shouldn't be anything wrong with being heavy in one or two lores, unfortunately right now with how things are designed, it's very 1-dimensional for anyone to stick with one lore because you miss out on bonuses from other spells (no matter how minor they are). Heavy training should provide better end results over someone that dabbles. Right now it doesn't feel that way. Someone that trains 200 ranks of fire lore, they don't really gain much over someone that has 100 ranks. This is a problem and needs to be fixed.
I don't want us to be simply limited to being good on all levels. If this is to become the case, then just remove lores from the game and design the spells to improve with known spell ranks or your character's level. What's the point in having lores to improve spells if you're unhappy with picking and choosing a couple lores to mainly focus on? Putting everything to be exceptional at a low threshold (50-60 ranks) just defeats the purpose of it all in my opinion.
Now, there's nothing wrong with expecting a decent return at a lower ceiling for lores. Every spell needs to be useful without lores. The addition of lores need to boost the spells to a good, solid reliable power at all hunting levels. Once folks really exceed the base lore levels (we'll say 50-60 ranks), the spells need to kick it up a notch for those that want to focus more.
I want to see a good return at a lower ceiling for lores (50-60 ranks of lore) on all levels, plus having the ability to be really exceptional if you decide to hit 80-90+ ranks in one or two element. For someone that's want to be good and have reliable spells for 50-60 lore ranks, well, you can be the jack of all lores and still be very viable at post-cap with solid killing power. For those that focus heavy on one or two lores, they should be really good to exceptional in those spells they boost - not just slightly better over someone that only put 50-60 ranks into it.
We're almost on the same path with what we want, you just want everything to be perfect at a low threshold of ranks with elemental lores. I want us to be very viable at a low rank level with lores and then also have the ability to be exceptional if we focus heavy on one or two lores.
>For people who keep asking this, I'd like you to consider what you're asking for. Most capped creatures have some type of elemental immunity. Elemental spells by definition don't work against a subset of creatures already. Would you really want to be boxed into one type? That's what old 519 used to do. It's a restriction that doesn't apply to 317.
Sadly, our current set of spells are based upon elements. Perhaps there needs to be a way to reduce/remove immunities against specific elements on creatures so you're not just "boxed" into certain creatures you can hunt. Without getting a spell that negates elements in it's base damage, we don't really have a way around this issue. It then leads to two things:
1) NIR will say not every class/weapon/spell will work on every creature. Find ones that they do work against.
2) A new spell is created to help wizards bypass this problem
I doubt #2 will ever be done, but I have been proven wrong before. I never thought they'd make a spell that gave wizards crit padding (new 520 spell that's coming out).
-Drumpel
There shouldn't be anything wrong with being heavy in one or two lores, unfortunately right now with how things are designed, it's very 1-dimensional for anyone to stick with one lore because you miss out on bonuses from other spells (no matter how minor they are). Heavy training should provide better end results over someone that dabbles. Right now it doesn't feel that way. Someone that trains 200 ranks of fire lore, they don't really gain much over someone that has 100 ranks. This is a problem and needs to be fixed.
I don't want us to be simply limited to being good on all levels. If this is to become the case, then just remove lores from the game and design the spells to improve with known spell ranks or your character's level. What's the point in having lores to improve spells if you're unhappy with picking and choosing a couple lores to mainly focus on? Putting everything to be exceptional at a low threshold (50-60 ranks) just defeats the purpose of it all in my opinion.
Now, there's nothing wrong with expecting a decent return at a lower ceiling for lores. Every spell needs to be useful without lores. The addition of lores need to boost the spells to a good, solid reliable power at all hunting levels. Once folks really exceed the base lore levels (we'll say 50-60 ranks), the spells need to kick it up a notch for those that want to focus more.
I want to see a good return at a lower ceiling for lores (50-60 ranks of lore) on all levels, plus having the ability to be really exceptional if you decide to hit 80-90+ ranks in one or two element. For someone that's want to be good and have reliable spells for 50-60 lore ranks, well, you can be the jack of all lores and still be very viable at post-cap with solid killing power. For those that focus heavy on one or two lores, they should be really good to exceptional in those spells they boost - not just slightly better over someone that only put 50-60 ranks into it.
We're almost on the same path with what we want, you just want everything to be perfect at a low threshold of ranks with elemental lores. I want us to be very viable at a low rank level with lores and then also have the ability to be exceptional if we focus heavy on one or two lores.
>For people who keep asking this, I'd like you to consider what you're asking for. Most capped creatures have some type of elemental immunity. Elemental spells by definition don't work against a subset of creatures already. Would you really want to be boxed into one type? That's what old 519 used to do. It's a restriction that doesn't apply to 317.
Sadly, our current set of spells are based upon elements. Perhaps there needs to be a way to reduce/remove immunities against specific elements on creatures so you're not just "boxed" into certain creatures you can hunt. Without getting a spell that negates elements in it's base damage, we don't really have a way around this issue. It then leads to two things:
1) NIR will say not every class/weapon/spell will work on every creature. Find ones that they do work against.
2) A new spell is created to help wizards bypass this problem
I doubt #2 will ever be done, but I have been proven wrong before. I never thought they'd make a spell that gave wizards crit padding (new 520 spell that's coming out).
-Drumpel
"That's not what I suggested at all. I would like there to be different flavors of mages based on attunement and lores, but ideally lores should also be able to unlock the other elements' version of 519, for example-LadyFleurs"
I do not know what to say but they are the same ideas.
Fire unlocked at 20 ranks for 518, Cold unlocked 20 ranks for 518, Earth unlocked at 20 ranks, Air unlocked at 20 ranks, Lightning unlocked at 10 air 10 water, Acid unlocked at 10 earth 10 water, Steam unlocked at 10 fire 10 water, Water unlocked at 20. Attunement negates need for lore. That and this is exactly the same.
Where do I say you shouldn't get use out of it? Where do I say you need 202 ranks to be a specialist? I was advocating for 50+ ranks receiving some benefit and growing from there.
I dislike the fact that 504 requires air lore a ton! You can use a work around and add it to 950 and I have done so as needed.
If other professions lores dont work with the wizards superior diminishing returns let them become mages and have a 4 way split to their lores.
GBB
I do not know what to say but they are the same ideas.
Fire unlocked at 20 ranks for 518, Cold unlocked 20 ranks for 518, Earth unlocked at 20 ranks, Air unlocked at 20 ranks, Lightning unlocked at 10 air 10 water, Acid unlocked at 10 earth 10 water, Steam unlocked at 10 fire 10 water, Water unlocked at 20. Attunement negates need for lore. That and this is exactly the same.
Where do I say you shouldn't get use out of it? Where do I say you need 202 ranks to be a specialist? I was advocating for 50+ ranks receiving some benefit and growing from there.
I dislike the fact that 504 requires air lore a ton! You can use a work around and add it to 950 and I have done so as needed.
If other professions lores dont work with the wizards superior diminishing returns let them become mages and have a 4 way split to their lores.
GBB
>Heavy training should provide better end results over someone that dabbles.
I don't think 20-50 ranks is considered "dabbling", especially with a 4-way split.
>Right now it doesn't feel that way. Someone that trains 200 ranks of fire lore, they don't really gain much over someone that has 100 ranks.
I disagree based on this example. For any of the other lores, it's true you don't really gain much over someone that has 100 ranks.
>I don't want us to be simply limited to being good on all levels. If this is to become the case, then just remove lores from the game and design the spells to improve with known spell ranks or your character's level. What's the point in having lores to improve spells if you're unhappy with picking and choosing a couple lores to mainly focus on?
I don't want us to be simply good on all levels either.
>Putting everything to be exceptional at a low threshold (50-60 ranks) just defeats the purpose of it all in my opinion.
In case you were unaware, this is how spiritual lores and pures work. My spiritual pures enjoy this. Any cleric will tell you they enjoy being able to convert to the Arkati of their choice without worrying their RP will cripple them mechanically in combat. That's what I wanted attunement to do for wizards.
Put differently, in my opinion, a "build" isn't based on the spell effects alone or what cookie cutter hunting tells you you should do, but what you choose to do with the tools at your disposal. If you had different elemental flavors of equally viable tools, you could choose to use those, or use the exceptional one that's boosted by your attunement in addition to your lore. Right now by default, the high DF bolts are only one or two elemental types. Same with the one middling warding spell we have. This isn't choice, I see it as forced gameplay style.
>We're almost on the same path with what we want, you just want everything to be perfect at a low threshold of ranks with elemental lores. I want us to be very viable at a low rank level with lores and then also have the ability to be exceptional if we focus heavy on one or two lores.
I agree we're almost on the same path, but I still think in general wizards are aiming too low. I never said I want everything to be perfect at low thresholds. 50-60 ranks is not a low threshold either, when you have a 4-way split and most creatures have some type of elemental immunity, when spiritualists have the same with 60-70 ranks and a 3-way split. I do want things to be very good at 50-60 ranks. Then exceptional if you are both attuned and have that amount of lore, with the attunement giving the extra boost.
>1) NIR will say not every class/weapon/spell will work on every creature. Find ones that they do work against.
Not every class/weapon/spell will work on every creature, but it shouldn't be the case where wizards, as pures, are now even more limited against the same types of creatures than the other pures are simply because of the way the elements work. This is largely due to the removal of 519. Instant kill potential, and sufficient excessive warding margin, both bypass or help resolve low lores that a spiritualist might have, which is also why you're understating the power that spiritual pures have when you ask for an even lower ceiling for wizards. Wizards already have a lower ceiling based on the way bolts work. There's no need to lower that even further.
I don't think 20-50 ranks is considered "dabbling", especially with a 4-way split.
>Right now it doesn't feel that way. Someone that trains 200 ranks of fire lore, they don't really gain much over someone that has 100 ranks.
I disagree based on this example. For any of the other lores, it's true you don't really gain much over someone that has 100 ranks.
>I don't want us to be simply limited to being good on all levels. If this is to become the case, then just remove lores from the game and design the spells to improve with known spell ranks or your character's level. What's the point in having lores to improve spells if you're unhappy with picking and choosing a couple lores to mainly focus on?
I don't want us to be simply good on all levels either.
>Putting everything to be exceptional at a low threshold (50-60 ranks) just defeats the purpose of it all in my opinion.
In case you were unaware, this is how spiritual lores and pures work. My spiritual pures enjoy this. Any cleric will tell you they enjoy being able to convert to the Arkati of their choice without worrying their RP will cripple them mechanically in combat. That's what I wanted attunement to do for wizards.
Put differently, in my opinion, a "build" isn't based on the spell effects alone or what cookie cutter hunting tells you you should do, but what you choose to do with the tools at your disposal. If you had different elemental flavors of equally viable tools, you could choose to use those, or use the exceptional one that's boosted by your attunement in addition to your lore. Right now by default, the high DF bolts are only one or two elemental types. Same with the one middling warding spell we have. This isn't choice, I see it as forced gameplay style.
>We're almost on the same path with what we want, you just want everything to be perfect at a low threshold of ranks with elemental lores. I want us to be very viable at a low rank level with lores and then also have the ability to be exceptional if we focus heavy on one or two lores.
I agree we're almost on the same path, but I still think in general wizards are aiming too low. I never said I want everything to be perfect at low thresholds. 50-60 ranks is not a low threshold either, when you have a 4-way split and most creatures have some type of elemental immunity, when spiritualists have the same with 60-70 ranks and a 3-way split. I do want things to be very good at 50-60 ranks. Then exceptional if you are both attuned and have that amount of lore, with the attunement giving the extra boost.
>1) NIR will say not every class/weapon/spell will work on every creature. Find ones that they do work against.
Not every class/weapon/spell will work on every creature, but it shouldn't be the case where wizards, as pures, are now even more limited against the same types of creatures than the other pures are simply because of the way the elements work. This is largely due to the removal of 519. Instant kill potential, and sufficient excessive warding margin, both bypass or help resolve low lores that a spiritualist might have, which is also why you're understating the power that spiritual pures have when you ask for an even lower ceiling for wizards. Wizards already have a lower ceiling based on the way bolts work. There's no need to lower that even further.
>I do not know what to say but they are the same ideas.
They are almost the same idea, but without diminishing returns, the power curve would be moved up such that you'd almost need 202 ranks for it to be at the exceptional level, while those with 50-60 ranks wouldn't get as much use out of things. I'd rather stick with diminishing returns and allowing wizards to still be very good at more than a single type of element.
They are almost the same idea, but without diminishing returns, the power curve would be moved up such that you'd almost need 202 ranks for it to be at the exceptional level, while those with 50-60 ranks wouldn't get as much use out of things. I'd rather stick with diminishing returns and allowing wizards to still be very good at more than a single type of element.
"They are almost the same idea, but without diminishing returns, the power curve would be moved up such that you'd almost need 202 ranks for it to be at the exceptional level, while those with 50-60 ranks wouldn't get as much use out of things. I'd rather stick with diminishing returns and allowing wizards to still be very good at more than a single type of element.-Lady Fleurs"
I do not see how making it better for 50+ makes it less good for 1-50. I didn't advocate to have the lore benefits from 1-50 to be lessened at all. You are always writing don't lessen/nerf add and enhance. This might not be the way to add and enhance but nowhere did I ask for a nerf. Right now of the 98 spells lore bonuses I am tracking by spreadsheet 25 of them receive a bonus at 60 and 4 more at 61. You almost have enough step bonuses from 1-60 as you do from 62-250. Now I would like those bonuses to be significant and advantageous from 1-60 to the point where getting 3 of those to that mark would be = to specializing but right now I do not find that to be the case. Again if Specializing is going to be a thing then make it at least as good those who are well rounded.
GBB
I do not see how making it better for 50+ makes it less good for 1-50. I didn't advocate to have the lore benefits from 1-50 to be lessened at all. You are always writing don't lessen/nerf add and enhance. This might not be the way to add and enhance but nowhere did I ask for a nerf. Right now of the 98 spells lore bonuses I am tracking by spreadsheet 25 of them receive a bonus at 60 and 4 more at 61. You almost have enough step bonuses from 1-60 as you do from 62-250. Now I would like those bonuses to be significant and advantageous from 1-60 to the point where getting 3 of those to that mark would be = to specializing but right now I do not find that to be the case. Again if Specializing is going to be a thing then make it at least as good those who are well rounded.
GBB
>I do not see how making it better for 50+ makes it less good for 1-50. I didn't advocate to have the lore benefits from 1-50 to be lessened at all. You are always writing don't lessen/nerf add and enhance. This might not be the way to add and enhance but nowhere did I ask for a nerf.
You didn't ask for this, but that is my point about no diminishing returns. If there are no diminishing returns, and some people can choose to make no choice at all, the obvious move would be to go 202 on one lore and be a one trick pony. If enough people do this, they will balance things such that you can't be good at 50 and now need much more to achieve the same level of good that 50 used to provide. This is what old 519 and needing 202 EL:F used to require.
They've deliberately shifted this down so now you don't need 202 ranks to max out your 519 benefit. The problem though is that 519 isn't a good example for this any more because even though you don't need to go all in to max out your benefit, the effect isn't exceptional or even great at the high end. I want what you want but with diminishing returns so you can achieve the exceptional not at 202 ranks. So basically allowing you to be a specialist in more than one element.
You didn't ask for this, but that is my point about no diminishing returns. If there are no diminishing returns, and some people can choose to make no choice at all, the obvious move would be to go 202 on one lore and be a one trick pony. If enough people do this, they will balance things such that you can't be good at 50 and now need much more to achieve the same level of good that 50 used to provide. This is what old 519 and needing 202 EL:F used to require.
They've deliberately shifted this down so now you don't need 202 ranks to max out your 519 benefit. The problem though is that 519 isn't a good example for this any more because even though you don't need to go all in to max out your benefit, the effect isn't exceptional or even great at the high end. I want what you want but with diminishing returns so you can achieve the exceptional not at 202 ranks. So basically allowing you to be a specialist in more than one element.
Which lore (including diminishing returns) should just flat add to AS?
Which lore (including diminishing returns) should just flat add to criticals - raise floor, add weighting, however expressed?
Which lore (including diminishing returns) should just flat reduce probability to hit non-lethal areas (think aiming, kinda)?
I know lores may not be the best first choice to try to tackle these problems - but I also personally feel just adding a spell for each of these three isn't our best first choice either.
Doug
Which lore (including diminishing returns) should just flat add to criticals - raise floor, add weighting, however expressed?
Which lore (including diminishing returns) should just flat reduce probability to hit non-lethal areas (think aiming, kinda)?
I know lores may not be the best first choice to try to tackle these problems - but I also personally feel just adding a spell for each of these three isn't our best first choice either.
Doug
What if training a lore earned 1 lore point that you could spend on improving specific spells in certain ways? In other words, you don't gain anything automatically as you train lores, but as you gain points in, for example, fire lore, you could then put 4 points to improve 908, then 6 to improve 908 again, then 8 points to improve 519, then 20 points to unlock steam bolt for 903, etc. There would be no diminishing returns because, as with combat maneuvers, you'd pick what you want to train in and ignore the others. There would be no mediocrity because you select which spells you want to be powerful. It's not an easy suggestion to implement but it's consistent with other systems in the game today, and it would (I think) address some of the bigger issues people have posted with lores.
>I know lores may not be the best first choice to try to tackle these problems - but I also personally feel just adding a spell for each of these three isn't our best first choice either.
I don't think every spell should require a lore or that new spells/systems should continue down the path of individual lores filling "roles". See 240 and how it's partially based on SMC, with ONE SL required. You know, skills, but ones that people generally already partially train in. Also, this thread was discussing the different lores affecting the types of elemental spells?
I don't think every spell should require a lore or that new spells/systems should continue down the path of individual lores filling "roles". See 240 and how it's partially based on SMC, with ONE SL required. You know, skills, but ones that people generally already partially train in. Also, this thread was discussing the different lores affecting the types of elemental spells?
>What if training a lore earned 1 lore point that you could spend on improving specific spells in certain ways? In other words, you don't gain anything automatically as you train lores, but as you gain points in, for example, fire lore, you could then put 4 points to improve 908, then 6 to improve 908 again, then 8 points to improve 519, then 20 points to unlock steam bolt for 903, etc. There would be no diminishing returns because, as with combat maneuvers, you'd pick what you want to train in and ignore the others. There would be no mediocrity because you select which spells you want to be powerful. It's not an easy suggestion to implement but it's consistent with other systems in the game today, and it would (I think) address some of the bigger issues people have posted with lores.
I disagree with continuing to try to make wizards like squares and semis rather than comparing to what works very well for other spiritual pures. I don't want magical CMANs. Also, CMANs do have much greater diminishing returns because higher ranks cost more points than the first rank of any CMAN.
I disagree with continuing to try to make wizards like squares and semis rather than comparing to what works very well for other spiritual pures. I don't want magical CMANs. Also, CMANs do have much greater diminishing returns because higher ranks cost more points than the first rank of any CMAN.
Which lore (including diminishing returns) should just flat add to AS?
Fire - Seems right but could swap with my earth choice
Which lore (including diminishing returns) should just flat add to criticals - raise floor, add weighting, however expressed?
Earth - See above
Which lore (including diminishing returns) should just flat reduce probability to hit non-lethal areas (think aiming, kinda)?
Air
Question for more math savvy people - Would +1 AS instead of .001 DF be more advantageous for us? This could have the same diminishing returns that the DF currently does.
http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif
Fire - Seems right but could swap with my earth choice
Which lore (including diminishing returns) should just flat add to criticals - raise floor, add weighting, however expressed?
Earth - See above
Which lore (including diminishing returns) should just flat reduce probability to hit non-lethal areas (think aiming, kinda)?
Air
Question for more math savvy people - Would +1 AS instead of .001 DF be more advantageous for us? This could have the same diminishing returns that the DF currently does.
http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif
>> as with combat maneuvers, you'd pick what you want to train in and ignore the others.
Yeah, um. . . sorry - I'm really blocked personally here. I think the idea's intriguing, don't get me wrong. I just don't think I can 'see forward' enough of your suggestion to really feel like it is going to resonate with me.
I think you're right that it would help - but it sounds complex, too. . . just like CMan.
Would love to see a 'grid' or some way to express this that will show a broader part of the picture to better see how it fits, if you're of a mind!
Doug
Yeah, um. . . sorry - I'm really blocked personally here. I think the idea's intriguing, don't get me wrong. I just don't think I can 'see forward' enough of your suggestion to really feel like it is going to resonate with me.
I think you're right that it would help - but it sounds complex, too. . . just like CMan.
Would love to see a 'grid' or some way to express this that will show a broader part of the picture to better see how it fits, if you're of a mind!
Doug
>>You know, skills, but ones that people generally already partially train in. Also, this thread was discussing the different lores affecting the types of elemental spells?
Great call out - would love to see responses amplified to include suggested mashups of other relevant skills that might help.
And yes, perhaps not the most hygienic placement for the questions, but they are questions about how different lores affect types of elemental spells - just not 'fire to fire', 'water to water'.
Doug
Great call out - would love to see responses amplified to include suggested mashups of other relevant skills that might help.
And yes, perhaps not the most hygienic placement for the questions, but they are questions about how different lores affect types of elemental spells - just not 'fire to fire', 'water to water'.
Doug
>I disagree with continuing to try to make wizards like squares and semis rather than comparing to what works very well for other spiritual pures. I don't want magical CMANs. Also, CMANs do have much greater diminishing returns because higher ranks cost more points than the first rank of any CMAN.
It's true, you can always spend 15-20 points to learn the 5th rank of a maneuver instead of spending 3-4 points for a 1st rank in several others. If you get diminishing returns from this scenario, though, it's because you chose them. The reason I suggest a systemic change is it's consistent with other parts of the game, and I think it's a great system to expand on. It adds unique flavor to characters, and could go a long way toward bringing back specialists. I understand it may not be a popular idea, of course.
It's true, you can always spend 15-20 points to learn the 5th rank of a maneuver instead of spending 3-4 points for a 1st rank in several others. If you get diminishing returns from this scenario, though, it's because you chose them. The reason I suggest a systemic change is it's consistent with other parts of the game, and I think it's a great system to expand on. It adds unique flavor to characters, and could go a long way toward bringing back specialists. I understand it may not be a popular idea, of course.
>If you get diminishing returns from this scenario, though, it's because you chose them. The reason I suggest a systemic change is it's consistent with other parts of the game, and I think it's a great system to expand on. It adds unique flavor to characters, and could go a long way toward bringing back specialists. I understand it may not be a popular idea, of course.
If we can't even get the training system to change to 3x lores or 3x EMC, I just find it highly unlikely we're going to get magical CMANs. Plus, it unnecessarily complicates things that already seem very complicated. Squares and semis use CMANs because their hunting is otherwise unlimited, so CMAN abilities act as a stamina control for their upper end capabilities. Pures already have mana as a limitation factor on hunting, so we don't need a new magical CMAN system on top of it.
If we can't even get the training system to change to 3x lores or 3x EMC, I just find it highly unlikely we're going to get magical CMANs. Plus, it unnecessarily complicates things that already seem very complicated. Squares and semis use CMANs because their hunting is otherwise unlimited, so CMAN abilities act as a stamina control for their upper end capabilities. Pures already have mana as a limitation factor on hunting, so we don't need a new magical CMAN system on top of it.
<<I think you're right that it would help - but it sounds complex, too. . . just like CMan.
Would love to see a 'grid' or some way to express this that will show a broader part of the picture to better see how it fits, if you're of a mind!>>
I had posted something very similar to this on the PC. You would need to remove the 4 elements from training and condense them into one skill, lets call is Elemental Lore. I had it envisioned much like shield and armor specialization but a little different. You would have a LORE verb, under that you would have 4 specializations (earth, fire, water, air). In each specialization there would be 5 ranks (could be more or less). Each rank would add a different ability or supplement our spells.
As an example:
Fire:
Rank 1: Unlocks Steambolt
Rank 2: Unlocks Ignite on all fire based spells
Rank 3:
Rank 4:
Rank 5: Unlocks 20% chance for insta-death w/519
Off the top of my head I couldn't come up with a rank 3 or 4, but I feel you can get my idea from this. Rank 5 cost 150 ranks in total (1 thru 5). Again these ranks are just off the top of my head and could use more thought put into them.
http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif
Would love to see a 'grid' or some way to express this that will show a broader part of the picture to better see how it fits, if you're of a mind!>>
I had posted something very similar to this on the PC. You would need to remove the 4 elements from training and condense them into one skill, lets call is Elemental Lore. I had it envisioned much like shield and armor specialization but a little different. You would have a LORE verb, under that you would have 4 specializations (earth, fire, water, air). In each specialization there would be 5 ranks (could be more or less). Each rank would add a different ability or supplement our spells.
As an example:
Fire:
Rank 1: Unlocks Steambolt
Rank 2: Unlocks Ignite on all fire based spells
Rank 3:
Rank 4:
Rank 5: Unlocks 20% chance for insta-death w/519
Off the top of my head I couldn't come up with a rank 3 or 4, but I feel you can get my idea from this. Rank 5 cost 150 ranks in total (1 thru 5). Again these ranks are just off the top of my head and could use more thought put into them.
http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif
>>If we can't even get the training system to change to 3x lores or 3x EMC
So far, we're looking at suggestions for only having 3 lores, changing up training to allow for 3x lores instead of 2x, and 3x EMC. I'll be honest, I missed something somewhere and don't understand 3x EMC in a lore discussion - unless it is to support the 'mashup' concepts. I'll try to revisit older posts to see what I missed.
In the meantime, 3 lores versus 3x lores. Both would require retooling the elemental lores function, so probably not seen as a 'quick win'. Also the 3 lores one has an additional burden, any items designed for the 'dropped' lore suddenly is a dud - creating another contention point.
Even with those headwinds, which of these is better, and why?
I'd almost suggest bringing back an old idea that was hashed around when the lore pain for sorcerers was being ram/butt/batter/bashed about. Learning a lore gives 1/4 equivalency (adjust to suit!) in a 'like' lore. What's that mean?
Fire lore - 12 ranks automatically grants the equivalent of an additional 3 ranks Earth, 3 ranks Air, 0 ranks water (opposed element).
Fire lore - 202 ranks, automatically grants the equivalent of an additional 50 ranks Earth, etc. etc. etc.
It kind of allows for that 3x lores (or maybe a bit more?) without having to address training point distributions, etc.
Doesn't help solve the 'threshold of greatness' discussion, necessarily, but does allow for a sense of strong specialization (choice) for 'great' without having to feel one has sacrificed in other critical areas for 'good' affect.
Doug
So far, we're looking at suggestions for only having 3 lores, changing up training to allow for 3x lores instead of 2x, and 3x EMC. I'll be honest, I missed something somewhere and don't understand 3x EMC in a lore discussion - unless it is to support the 'mashup' concepts. I'll try to revisit older posts to see what I missed.
In the meantime, 3 lores versus 3x lores. Both would require retooling the elemental lores function, so probably not seen as a 'quick win'. Also the 3 lores one has an additional burden, any items designed for the 'dropped' lore suddenly is a dud - creating another contention point.
Even with those headwinds, which of these is better, and why?
I'd almost suggest bringing back an old idea that was hashed around when the lore pain for sorcerers was being ram/butt/batter/bashed about. Learning a lore gives 1/4 equivalency (adjust to suit!) in a 'like' lore. What's that mean?
Fire lore - 12 ranks automatically grants the equivalent of an additional 3 ranks Earth, 3 ranks Air, 0 ranks water (opposed element).
Fire lore - 202 ranks, automatically grants the equivalent of an additional 50 ranks Earth, etc. etc. etc.
It kind of allows for that 3x lores (or maybe a bit more?) without having to address training point distributions, etc.
Doesn't help solve the 'threshold of greatness' discussion, necessarily, but does allow for a sense of strong specialization (choice) for 'great' without having to feel one has sacrificed in other critical areas for 'good' affect.
Doug
>So far, we're looking at suggestions for only having 3 lores
I don't really recall seeing this anywhere. We've said that spiritualists only have to split lores 3-ways, but I don't recall any wizard suggesting we drop one of the lores entirely.
>changing up training to allow for 3x lores instead of 2x
We've been told no because they cannot change the character manager/database.
>and 3x EMC. I'll be honest, I missed something somewhere and don't understand 3x EMC in a lore discussion - unless it is to support the 'mashup' concepts.
It's not part of the lore discussion, but it had been pointed out and requested before when MANA SPELLUP was originally introduced. Clerics can 3x SMC as the most spiritual pure, while wizards can only 2x EMC as the most elemental pure. It's less important now that MANA SPELLUP has been revised to give a use every 25 ranks rather than 75, but it was significant before. It also opens up more options for clerics and their mana regeneration.
>Fire lore - 202 ranks, automatically grants the equivalent of an additional 50 ranks Earth, etc. etc. etc.
>Doesn't help solve the 'threshold of greatness' discussion, necessarily, but does allow for a sense of strong specialization (choice) for 'great' without having to feel one has sacrificed in other critical areas for 'good' affect.
I like this a lot, but it sounds horribly complicated to think about, much less balance for. Yikes!
I don't really recall seeing this anywhere. We've said that spiritualists only have to split lores 3-ways, but I don't recall any wizard suggesting we drop one of the lores entirely.
>changing up training to allow for 3x lores instead of 2x
We've been told no because they cannot change the character manager/database.
>and 3x EMC. I'll be honest, I missed something somewhere and don't understand 3x EMC in a lore discussion - unless it is to support the 'mashup' concepts.
It's not part of the lore discussion, but it had been pointed out and requested before when MANA SPELLUP was originally introduced. Clerics can 3x SMC as the most spiritual pure, while wizards can only 2x EMC as the most elemental pure. It's less important now that MANA SPELLUP has been revised to give a use every 25 ranks rather than 75, but it was significant before. It also opens up more options for clerics and their mana regeneration.
>Fire lore - 202 ranks, automatically grants the equivalent of an additional 50 ranks Earth, etc. etc. etc.
>Doesn't help solve the 'threshold of greatness' discussion, necessarily, but does allow for a sense of strong specialization (choice) for 'great' without having to feel one has sacrificed in other critical areas for 'good' affect.
I like this a lot, but it sounds horribly complicated to think about, much less balance for. Yikes!
>>I don't recall any wizard suggesting we drop one of the lores entirely
I could be mistaken, but really thought I did, because I purposefully avoided posting that same point about training in a skill gets you modest benefits in a 'like' skill. If there was a post, I'll find it - and if not, consider me confuzzled.
>>Clerics can 3x SMC
Gotcha. Thanks for the triangulation.
>>it sounds horribly complicated to think about
Yes, I think you're right. It automatically happens if done as I suggested, but can complicate training decisions. It needs more simple! But I think to get that, we're going to have to return to one of your (?) observations. There should be a significant reason to pursue a lore, or two. If each lore had a 'purpose', and the player chose based on that 'purpose', the rest would take care of itself. The bridge (like skill benefit) doesn't get us to the destination (why do any specific lore).
Doug
I could be mistaken, but really thought I did, because I purposefully avoided posting that same point about training in a skill gets you modest benefits in a 'like' skill. If there was a post, I'll find it - and if not, consider me confuzzled.
>>Clerics can 3x SMC
Gotcha. Thanks for the triangulation.
>>it sounds horribly complicated to think about
Yes, I think you're right. It automatically happens if done as I suggested, but can complicate training decisions. It needs more simple! But I think to get that, we're going to have to return to one of your (?) observations. There should be a significant reason to pursue a lore, or two. If each lore had a 'purpose', and the player chose based on that 'purpose', the rest would take care of itself. The bridge (like skill benefit) doesn't get us to the destination (why do any specific lore).
Doug
>But I think to get that, we're going to have to return to one of your (?) observations. There should be a significant reason to pursue a lore, or two. If each lore had a 'purpose', and the player chose based on that 'purpose', the rest would take care of itself. The bridge (like skill benefit) doesn't get us to the destination (why do any specific lore).
No, this isn't what I had suggested. I said each SPELL SLOT should be designated for a specific desired purpose, whether it be utility, defense, or offense. Each lore should unlock a flavor of that desired usage, so that you can have a very powerful water-based 519, for example, if you wanted, while having a less powerful fire-based 519 if you only have enough to unlock it as with 518. This would allow flavors of wizard gameplay and hunting, defense, and utility based on the RP choice of the wizard's attunement.
Just because you are a water mage shouldn't mean you should suffer immensely offensively. What I wanted and suggested was that attunement be an RP choice, as CONVERT is for clerics, except allowing for the unlock of the other elemental types due to the unique elemental immunities that wizards have to consider in hunting.
I don't know how to explain this differently, but it seems I'm not getting my point across.
No, this isn't what I had suggested. I said each SPELL SLOT should be designated for a specific desired purpose, whether it be utility, defense, or offense. Each lore should unlock a flavor of that desired usage, so that you can have a very powerful water-based 519, for example, if you wanted, while having a less powerful fire-based 519 if you only have enough to unlock it as with 518. This would allow flavors of wizard gameplay and hunting, defense, and utility based on the RP choice of the wizard's attunement.
Just because you are a water mage shouldn't mean you should suffer immensely offensively. What I wanted and suggested was that attunement be an RP choice, as CONVERT is for clerics, except allowing for the unlock of the other elemental types due to the unique elemental immunities that wizards have to consider in hunting.
I don't know how to explain this differently, but it seems I'm not getting my point across.
>>but it seems I'm not getting my point across.
yeah, no. I don't think it's you, it's more likely me.
I think I got your point now - it might have been someone else who came up with the 'purpose' point.
Quick question to see if I really get this point you're making - wizard choice is unattuned (defaults to random) or attuned. If attuned and needing to change, only existing choice is random. A player should be able to choose (based on lore) rather than using random and hoping for the right result.
Then, for each spell, element is purposefully selected at point in time (possibility unlocked by appropriate lore) to serve best purpose for the wizard in a given situation. 519 example.
Yeah?
Doug
yeah, no. I don't think it's you, it's more likely me.
I think I got your point now - it might have been someone else who came up with the 'purpose' point.
Quick question to see if I really get this point you're making - wizard choice is unattuned (defaults to random) or attuned. If attuned and needing to change, only existing choice is random. A player should be able to choose (based on lore) rather than using random and hoping for the right result.
Then, for each spell, element is purposefully selected at point in time (possibility unlocked by appropriate lore) to serve best purpose for the wizard in a given situation. 519 example.
Yeah?
Doug
>Quick question to see if I really get this point you're making - wizard choice is unattuned (defaults to random) or attuned. If attuned and needing to change, only existing choice is random. A player should be able to choose (based on lore) rather than using random and hoping for the right result.
Yes.
>Then, for each spell, element is purposefully selected at point in time (possibility unlocked by appropriate lore) to serve best purpose for the wizard in a given situation. 519 example.
Yes.
But actually, neither of those were my main point. My point was that attunement and lore requirements shouldn't be conflated. Attunement and elements should be an RP choice, rather than a mechanical tradeoff, due to the fact that as things stand, lores have been made to each have a purpose, or role. Instead of a purpose, or role, the lores should unlock specific flavors of each spell, which should each have a designated functional purpose. If 504 is meant to be a crowd control spell, it should have that same purpose whether it's a wall of air, wave of water, wall of fire, or rock pile that causes that result. Similarly, if 519 is meant to be the primary offensive warding spell, no matter how weak, it should allow flavors of that offensive use rather than the current convoluted distribution for procs with each different lore.
Just because you are a water mage doesn't mean you should only be able to affect utility. You should be able to train in EL:W primarily, with lesser amounts of the other lores to unlock spells as desired, and still be able to hunt as well as the fire mage who trains the same amount in EL:F with lesser amounts in other lores. In other words, the flavor is provided by the RP choice of the wizard, with attunement giving the appropriate lore a boost, so every wizard doesn't have to train in the same lores the same way and only hunt with the same types of spells the same way.
At the end of the day, if someone has 2x EL, why does it matter if they WANT to train in 150 ranks of EL:W instead of 150 ranks of EL:F? The specific power levels should be determined by the actual rank thresholds, not which specific type they are. In other words, the amount should be what matters, and the actual element should be interchangeable so as to allow for actual choice in your arsenal. This isn't OP because of the elemental immunities of creatures, so there would be tradeoffs regardless. But a water wizard wouldn't be so sub-optimal as a combat character. This isn't even because I want to be or have a water wizard. I just think this is what actual choice involves, not forcing people into a specific mold or "build". (I hate the word "build". I want tools from which I can make my own choices, not to be told specifically how I must hunt to get the best result.)
Yes.
>Then, for each spell, element is purposefully selected at point in time (possibility unlocked by appropriate lore) to serve best purpose for the wizard in a given situation. 519 example.
Yes.
But actually, neither of those were my main point. My point was that attunement and lore requirements shouldn't be conflated. Attunement and elements should be an RP choice, rather than a mechanical tradeoff, due to the fact that as things stand, lores have been made to each have a purpose, or role. Instead of a purpose, or role, the lores should unlock specific flavors of each spell, which should each have a designated functional purpose. If 504 is meant to be a crowd control spell, it should have that same purpose whether it's a wall of air, wave of water, wall of fire, or rock pile that causes that result. Similarly, if 519 is meant to be the primary offensive warding spell, no matter how weak, it should allow flavors of that offensive use rather than the current convoluted distribution for procs with each different lore.
Just because you are a water mage doesn't mean you should only be able to affect utility. You should be able to train in EL:W primarily, with lesser amounts of the other lores to unlock spells as desired, and still be able to hunt as well as the fire mage who trains the same amount in EL:F with lesser amounts in other lores. In other words, the flavor is provided by the RP choice of the wizard, with attunement giving the appropriate lore a boost, so every wizard doesn't have to train in the same lores the same way and only hunt with the same types of spells the same way.
At the end of the day, if someone has 2x EL, why does it matter if they WANT to train in 150 ranks of EL:W instead of 150 ranks of EL:F? The specific power levels should be determined by the actual rank thresholds, not which specific type they are. In other words, the amount should be what matters, and the actual element should be interchangeable so as to allow for actual choice in your arsenal. This isn't OP because of the elemental immunities of creatures, so there would be tradeoffs regardless. But a water wizard wouldn't be so sub-optimal as a combat character. This isn't even because I want to be or have a water wizard. I just think this is what actual choice involves, not forcing people into a specific mold or "build". (I hate the word "build". I want tools from which I can make my own choices, not to be told specifically how I must hunt to get the best result.)
"If we can't even get the training system to change to 3x lores or 3x EMC, I just find it highly unlikely we're going to get magical CMANs." -- LadyFleur
I disagree. Note that they built the ArmorMan and ShieldMan point systems out of whole cloth, and shifted the ability to get certain CMans over to ShieldMans, so that Fighters/Rogues [the particular beneficiaries] could get more offensive/utility stuff with their CMan Points and relegate shield-only things to Shield Points.
.
For the record, something along the same lines (either SpellMans [more generically] or LoreMans [specifically]) was already suggested, right after the Shield- and Armor- point systems came out. :)
I disagree. Note that they built the ArmorMan and ShieldMan point systems out of whole cloth, and shifted the ability to get certain CMans over to ShieldMans, so that Fighters/Rogues [the particular beneficiaries] could get more offensive/utility stuff with their CMan Points and relegate shield-only things to Shield Points.
.
For the record, something along the same lines (either SpellMans [more generically] or LoreMans [specifically]) was already suggested, right after the Shield- and Armor- point systems came out. :)
>For the record, something along the same lines (either SpellMans [more generically] or LoreMans [specifically]) was already suggested, right after the Shield- and Armor- point systems came out. :)
I still have no desire to complicate things even further by requiring magical CMANs to achieve what every other pure can achieve. Nor do I think such a request would be filled in the next few years, so it's like asking for the moon to build an entirely new system just because wizards have problems. I wouldn't classify this as a quick win or best addressing the core problems we have.
I still have no desire to complicate things even further by requiring magical CMANs to achieve what every other pure can achieve. Nor do I think such a request would be filled in the next few years, so it's like asking for the moon to build an entirely new system just because wizards have problems. I wouldn't classify this as a quick win or best addressing the core problems we have.
What would happen if bolt/ball spells always applied all of their crit ranks, even with randomization? You're getting hit with a fire-hose, there's going to be some carry-over, is all I'm saying.
Now, obviously if you have a 9 and it gets randomized down to 5 (or 6 or 7 or 8), obviously you aren't going to get your 9...
...on that body part.
But why can't we also get the corresponding 4 (or 3 or 2 or 1) ranks...
...applied to an adjacent body part?
.
What if 'attune' meant that ranks in your element of choice counted for every Lore calculation?
(i.e. I have 5 Air/10 Earth/15 Fire/20 Water, and am Fire attuned. I am considered to have (for the ELR LotteryBoosts): 20 Air/25 Earth/30 Fire/35 Water.)
BUT you can only attune as many ranks as you have non-Attuned ranks.
(So, no "I put 200 in here!" and get 400 net. You could do it with X/Y/Z/100, and have X+100/Y+100/Z+100/200.)
(Through pure serendipity, my sample above is legal no matter which direction he Attuned. Even 5/10/15/30 would work, but 5/10/15/31 would NOT work for the 31; you would only get 30.)
- Right off the bat, most of my objections to all of the things that came out with "seed6" (or worse) would vanish.
- I can see ways to abuse it, but most of them aren't all that bad because of, well, seed6 (or worse).
.
LoreMans:
- one acts like TrueHand to ensure that the floor for crit randomization is always "one better" (has three ranks, so a 9-randomized-to-5 would, for this Mage, be either a 6 or 7 or 8 depending on whether he has 1 or 2 or 3 ranks; just like a CMan it costs 3/6/9 LoreMan points [so 18 out of 202 max]; and it's an 'always on' effect like Combat Focus).
My imagination ran out after that. :(
Note that the weapon swingers can only have 202 CMan points, so there would again be a direct correspondence of limit....
Now, obviously if you have a 9 and it gets randomized down to 5 (or 6 or 7 or 8), obviously you aren't going to get your 9...
...on that body part.
But why can't we also get the corresponding 4 (or 3 or 2 or 1) ranks...
...applied to an adjacent body part?
.
What if 'attune' meant that ranks in your element of choice counted for every Lore calculation?
(i.e. I have 5 Air/10 Earth/15 Fire/20 Water, and am Fire attuned. I am considered to have (for the ELR LotteryBoosts): 20 Air/25 Earth/30 Fire/35 Water.)
BUT you can only attune as many ranks as you have non-Attuned ranks.
(So, no "I put 200 in here!" and get 400 net. You could do it with X/Y/Z/100, and have X+100/Y+100/Z+100/200.)
(Through pure serendipity, my sample above is legal no matter which direction he Attuned. Even 5/10/15/30 would work, but 5/10/15/31 would NOT work for the 31; you would only get 30.)
- Right off the bat, most of my objections to all of the things that came out with "seed6" (or worse) would vanish.
- I can see ways to abuse it, but most of them aren't all that bad because of, well, seed6 (or worse).
.
LoreMans:
- one acts like TrueHand to ensure that the floor for crit randomization is always "one better" (has three ranks, so a 9-randomized-to-5 would, for this Mage, be either a 6 or 7 or 8 depending on whether he has 1 or 2 or 3 ranks; just like a CMan it costs 3/6/9 LoreMan points [so 18 out of 202 max]; and it's an 'always on' effect like Combat Focus).
My imagination ran out after that. :(
Note that the weapon swingers can only have 202 CMan points, so there would again be a direct correspondence of limit....
>>But why can't we also get the corresponding 4 (or 3 or 2 or 1) ranks ...applied to an adjacent body part? -Krakii
I really like this. Even conceptually: it takes the fact that bolts are too wild to aim, and leans into it. Mechanically it offsets the inability to aim by creating multi-body-part hits, and offsets the crit randomization by offering a secondary - albeit lesser - crit, only when you get the short end of the randomization stick. Physically it's quite believable, thanks to the fire-hose example. I like it when I see any system or adjustment which further differentiates bolts from physical weapons.
The only concern some might have is that it isn't tied to anything wizard-specific. This makes the change available to other pures, all of whom have bolts, and to critters. I don't mind the former personally, but the latter has even further-reaching consequences.
If we got past that, I still really dig this idea.
-b
I really like this. Even conceptually: it takes the fact that bolts are too wild to aim, and leans into it. Mechanically it offsets the inability to aim by creating multi-body-part hits, and offsets the crit randomization by offering a secondary - albeit lesser - crit, only when you get the short end of the randomization stick. Physically it's quite believable, thanks to the fire-hose example. I like it when I see any system or adjustment which further differentiates bolts from physical weapons.
The only concern some might have is that it isn't tied to anything wizard-specific. This makes the change available to other pures, all of whom have bolts, and to critters. I don't mind the former personally, but the latter has even further-reaching consequences.
If we got past that, I still really dig this idea.
-b
>>The only concern some might have is that it isn't tied to anything wizard-specific. This makes the change available to other pures, all of whom have bolts, and to critters. I don't mind the former personally, but the latter has even further-reaching consequences.
I think that's the real danger right there. Many of the bolt ideas are really cool sounding, but they can make critters devastating. It wouldn't really matter if other pures had access to stronger bolting options because they're not optimal or the primary form of attack for the majority of non-wizards. The danger is what happens (to all profession) when a bolting critter enters the fray!
I think that's the real danger right there. Many of the bolt ideas are really cool sounding, but they can make critters devastating. It wouldn't really matter if other pures had access to stronger bolting options because they're not optimal or the primary form of attack for the majority of non-wizards. The danger is what happens (to all profession) when a bolting critter enters the fray!
