new spells

Cliu Beothach · Post by **Cliu Beothach** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:48 pm

Unless they allow the learning of more than one type of magic they should all cross over a bit, and magery shouldnt be limited to offensive physical spells IMHO.

This causes more interaction. Also, the reason they are different is the reason there is more then one magic type. Casting a flame is a Physical cause.

Your arguments are still flawed

And that is a good argument?

Kasume · Post by **Kasume** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 12:37 am

In World of Warcraft. I play a mage.
In World of Warcraft, I can get away from any player, even after being ganked (being attacked during the combat of fighting something else, and the person can be much higher level than I (You don't usually defeat a "ganker," you tend to either get away, or die)).

In World of Warcraft, I have about 5 different shields that pertain to certain things.
Physical attack (which drains my mana).
Frost based (Only absorbs a certain amount, does not drain mana).
Fire bases (Only absorbs a certain amount, does not drain mana).
And I even have one that simply absorbs a certain amount of damage dealt to me.
Why do I have such seemingly invincible abilities? Because I wear such weak equipment. Let's not forget that some of my more powerful spells, have a "cooldown" (the time it takes to be allowed to cast the spell again).

In Illarion, you can completely stop the enemy from moving.
You can cast multiple spells, with no delay between them.
And you can even wear some of the most moderate armour (which, you don't need armour, I haven't met a single mage yet that has killed me with me standing in front of them (Usually I say "Hi" and I'm dead)).

What's my point? I don't know exactly. But I think I'm trying to get the point across that there needs to be a sense of balance. There's too many spells in there, that would require hours of testing and figuring out. To balance multiple ways of killing someone against the "CRTL+click" ability, AND have the advantage seem miniscule, but there.
If I could block people from even walking near me for 1 minute, I wouldn't even need armour or the less anything. Especially if there is no "cooldown."

I'm not saying to copy brilliant ideas. I am saying this though, no matter how much magic is suppose to over power a sword or any other method of fighting, there needs to be a boundry at which you say "There needs to be some balance."
Magic is enforced to be hard to get, yet I see brand spanking new characters casting every single spell (Exageration).

falco1029 · Post by **falco1029** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 1:08 am

Cliu, it may cause interaction, but not always good interaction. You would need at least four people, a druid, a mage, a priest, and a bard, if you wanted the effects used. Sure it mgith be fuin, but people are supposed to be able to go hunting alone once in a while. Though intereaction is good, what you suggest is too much, and I doubt it would cause as much interaction as you'd hope even. This would probbaly just aggrivate players IMO.

Kasume, the main cooldown period is mana drainage. The fact that a spell takes more of a percentage of mana than in any other game is how it balances out. Sure some might spend all of their money on mana potions so they can cast a bunch of spells in a row (and actually, there is a bit of a cooldown for paralyze, as I imagine other such spells would ahve too), and even then, there's no hotkeys, they ahve to manually select the runes each time, and unless they have a wand, a moving target is hard to hit. If they do ahve a wand, they rely solely on their spells to be able to defeat their opponent, and would ahve to kill them before the fighter got to them, or they are good as dead, unless they can change weapons quickly enough. You have to look at it closer.

Cliu Beothach · Post by **Cliu Beothach** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 1:33 am

You would need at least four people, a druid, a mage, a priest, and a bard, if you wanted the effects used. Sure it mgith be fuin, but people are supposed to be able to go hunting alone once in a while. Though intereaction is good, what you suggest is too much, and I doubt it would cause as much interaction as you'd hope even. This would probbaly just aggrivate players IMO.

The POINT of the different magic system is so everyone doesn't have similar effects. That is why they created them. If all those spells you suggested came to be, then the only difference between priest, bard, and mage magic would be the titles.

falco1029 · Post by **falco1029** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:04 am

Of course not. Mages would have most of their spells be offensive. They would hjave limited effects of the other types of magic in some spells.

priests would ahve some limited offensive spells and probably be able to do bard type effects on undead only

Bards could probably do some minor healing and probably poison an enemy.

Druids can poison already, and maybe later if they can forcfulyl put salves on, do some light damage or weaken someone's defense.

However, none of them would delve into deep effects of others.

A mage would never be able to cast a cintrolled ressurection on someone.

A priest should not be calling a lightning bolt that could kill instantly (Except maybe on udnead).

A bard wont be controlling undead with their...erm...magical flutes...of...control undead?

You get my point. Limite dbits of the other's. Not delving in deep. Thats my opinion. Pehaps we should stop arguing over this. We ahve already stated our sides and are at this point merely rewording ourselves. From here it should be up to the developers

Cliu Beothach · Post by **Cliu Beothach** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:26 am

priests would ahve some limited offensive spells and probably be able to do bard type effects on undead only
I think they will/should just be able to summon them IMHO
Bards could probably do some minor healing and probably poison an enemy.
Bards wont heal or poison most likely. They just increase/decrease defense, strength, ect.
Druids can poison already, and maybe later if they can forcfulyl put salves on, do some light damage or weaken someone's defense.

However, none of them would delve into deep effects of others.

A mage would never be able to cast a cintrolled ressurection on someone.

A priest should not be calling a lightning bolt that could kill instantly (Except maybe on udnead).

A bard wont be controlling undead with their...erm...magical flutes...of...control undead?
Bards wouldn't be able to merge into any of the magical systems. The only ones I can slightly see are druids-mages and priests-mages. Although I do not like the idea

but not always good interaction

Any IC interaction is good interaction in an rpg.

falco1029 · Post by **falco1029** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:38 am

But there is something called unneccesary interaction.
As for your responses to my examples those are all opinion based so i havent a need to respond. its just your seperate opinion. Argument over. Please.

Cliu Beothach · Post by **Cliu Beothach** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:46 am

what is unnecessary reaction? Please give an example.

falco1029 · Post by **falco1029** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:31 am

Needing four people to cast desired effects on a monster.

in an example you are lookign for, something like having to talk with four people to get permission to cut a tree down, because they al lown different things needed for that tree.

Interaction is only fun up to a certain point. I agree with not being able to heal oneself as a mage (thus needing others to heal one way or another), or as a druid needing to colelct herbs form someone, and get things for glass bottles as a druid to do so.

Cliu Beothach · Post by **Cliu Beothach** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 4:36 am

Needing four people to cast desired effects on a monster.

Well, unless you plan to heal/weaken/cast/and poison I dont see how this is necessary.

falco1029 · Post by **falco1029** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 7:02 am

Heal the people, weaken it to make it easier to kill, cast offensively at it, and then poison it for more damage for one example.

Cliu Beothach · Post by **Cliu Beothach** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:09 am

And thats the exact reason to split it up.

Talaena Landessi · Post by **Talaena Landessi** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:26 am

HAHA....to bad....Dungeons and Dragons rules couldnt be implemented *grins, feeling the wrathe of flamers begining to cast upon him*
that would clear up alot of this
program stright from the AD&D core rule books

eh..oh well dont plan on playing a magic user when the new client comes out any ways...to much work *g*

falco1029 · Post by **falco1029** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 7:31 pm

And thats the exact reason to split it up.

NO, because if you don't, you'd still need two people. One to focus on the monster, one to focus on keeping the player alive. There's still interaction, just not an unnecessary amount.

Gro'bul · Post by **Gro'bul** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:19 pm

Magic is support, hand-to-hand fighters are the ones "fucusing" on the monster.

falco1029 · Post by **falco1029** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:28 pm

If the mage can fight they are the one focusing on it as well.

Zare · Post by **Zare** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:24 pm

Mages shouldn't be able to fight. They are mages. Not fighters. Your arguments are ridiculous. All magic users should have their own unique set of spells to keep them, well... unique. We don't want everyone to be more the same than they are already.

Heal the people, weaken it to make it easier to kill, cast offensively at it, and then poison it for more damage for one example.

Also, I do not see why all this is neccesary, unless it would be a very strong monster, in which case it should be a large group fighting it anyway.

falco1029 · Post by **falco1029** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 10:11 pm

You know nothign of mages, obviously. Most wil ltake up fighting with a staff or hammer, to enough of a point to defend themselves shoudl their magic not be available. I agrewe they should be unique, but little bits of magic that re[resent that in the other's makes perfect sense. If D&D rules were appiled, it would be like that. Wizards and sorcerers can heal to a point in it, cause status ailments, and the like. Clerics and paladins have a few offensive and staus inducing spells, but noneso like a Sorcerer's offens eor a bard's status spells. A bard casts offensively and heals to a limit as well, but does focus on status. These are the thigns that get peope, to enjoy it. A mage shoudl not have to seek a bard in order to to minimally weaken the status of an enemy.

Cliu Beothach · Post by **Cliu Beothach** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 10:20 pm

A mage shoudl not have to seek a bard in order to to minimally weaken the status of an enemy.

I believe they should. Then why would you go search for a bard? If the mages "weaken" spell would be so weak that he would want a stronger bard spell, why have the mage weaken spell in the first place?

Most wil ltake up fighting with a staff or hammer, to enough of a point to defend themselves shoudl their magic not be available.

I would call that a warlock...

Mage magic is wielded by mages, and to a lesser extent by warlocks.

falco1029 · Post by **falco1029** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 1:21 am

Cliu Beothach wrote:
I believe they should. Then why would you go search for a bard? If the mages "weaken" spell would be so weak that he would want a stronger bard spell, why have the mage weaken spell in the first place?

Why use scissors when a longsword is available? Same reason.

I would call that a warlock...

No, most mages can fight, a warlock focuses on the fighting moreso than the magic.

Cliu Beothach · Post by **Cliu Beothach** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 2:06 am

Why use scissors when a longsword is ava[qupteilable? Same reason.

Do you ever fight with scissors? Not from curiousity but just do use them? I dont think so, so why have a spell that is like scissors. Scissors have another purpose, what the were intended for.

falco1029 · Post by **falco1029** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 2:14 am

It's a metaphor. Basically meaning if you just need them weakened a little bit why go overboard and find a bard?

Sherg · Post by **Sherg** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 3:07 am

Then you phrased it wrong...because the metaphor means "why use scissors (mage weaken) when you can use a long sword (bard weaken)."

falco1029 · Post by **falco1029** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 3:09 am

Then you phrased it wrong...because the metaphor means "why use scissors (mage weaken) when you can use a long sword (bard weaken)."

No, it means why ocverdo it with a bard spell when you can use a weaker mage one that gives you the efefct you want.

Sherg · Post by **Sherg** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 3:12 am

So you want to use something weaker? They both have the same "effect" one is jsut better.

falco1029 · Post by **falco1029** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 3:56 am

Because you dont want to search for a bard to cast it?

Cliu Beothach · Post by **Cliu Beothach** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:09 am

We know, but I dont think one should be able to do everything by oneself.

falco1029 · Post by **falco1029** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:29 am

They would need a bard if the mage spell wasnt enough. As was said also, scissors cant do the job of a longsword