| 1: [May 11 1999] Mages (Biblius) |
| It's come to my attention that the current mage situation isn't nearly as clean as it could be. Mages are admittedly more versatile and probably more powerful than fighters when prepared. While it's simple to fix specific spells, it doesn't seem to get at the underlying problem of versatility. The problem is derived from the fact that mages are generally the only ones who benefit from spells, and that most mages can benefit from most spells. As spells naturally spread, it's gotten to the point where most mages can get ahold of the vast majority of the released spells. If more spells are added, they soon get spread to all of the mages, which just adds to the problem. And so new spells are less likely to come out. I'm proposing a different solution to the problem, and I'd like everyone's input. Specialization. Real penalties which will effect mages trying to cast all the spells. A diferentiation between different types of mages, instead of what these days is primarily a matter of degree. Any arguments for or against this basic idea are welcome. Biblius |
| 2: [May 11 1999] Re: Mages (Merkle) |
I guess the question of whether or not I would support the idea would depend to some extent on the nature of the changes being discussed. However, I don't like the idea of trying to specialize things much more than they already are. In a perfect world, with a true player based economy, you might think of one character making a living growing cotton, another making it into cloth, another making cloths, etc. However, on DM we have to remember the reality that there has to be a player sitting behind the screen going through the motions of doing things, and it would grow tiresome to spend hours on end doing just one thing, and if something like that were instituted, many would grow weary of the MUD, and drift off....I know I would. The same applies to spells, although in a lesser way. A change in the rate at which spells change alignment might be a good idea, and in some cases increasing the difficulty of casting the spells out of alignment...but then people would just learn their spells up to a higher level and continue on.... If something could be done to increase the use of scrolls, that would be a step towards balancing things out. I see that scrolls have been recently made craftable..not sure of the ingredients, but if the price of making scrolls comes down, then the spells would benefit non-mages more and the balance issues would work themselves out. Perhaps completely changing the way scrolls work to make them less cumbersome would be good. It is true that a really powerful mage who is prepared is going to be in better shape than a really powerful fighter (although if they are thrown in a ring together on a seconds notice the mage will be very dead), but it would be interesting to see statistics on how many people make it that far. Building up a mage to be one of those green fire bolt throwing creatures with 10 animals takes almost litterally years, and I would hazard a guess that in a match between the _average_ fighter and the _average_ mage, the fighter would have a good chance of winning, even if the mage had some warning. (Besides, I thought summon animal spells were in for a serious downgrade in the near future, in which case I _know_ this would happen.) In summary, though I will admit that there are balance issues that ought to be looked at, I don't think forcing each mage to decide: "Do I wish to spend my time online throwing fire bolts, or do I wish to provide light or Jonathan spells, or do I wish to spend all my time healing?" is the answer. It _would_ probably cause the number of mages to drop greatly, but I don't think that is the point of balance. -Merkle (A mage) |
| 3: [May 11 1999] mages (Ungoliant) |
| I don't believe specialization for mages is an answer. I think far too often the question being raised is 'who is more powerful, a mage or fighter" ect. In all my years of playing (and that dates to the very start of the mud), the number of times I actually attacked any spell caster player or non player has to number less then a dozen. Players rarely fight each other. More emphasis needs to be made on mages and fighters working together. There are no spells that actually aid a fighter in battle. No armor spell really matters. Either you will parry the monster and win, or not parry and die. Why not a strength spell, or dexterity spell ect that does not harm your other abilities From a point of spells being spread, I think instead of the problem being the spells being spread too diversely, the problem is quite the opposite. I would recommend a creator create a new character and see how difficult it is to get their spells, with most being non-questable. I personally would like to see specialization, but in a different manner. While this is suppose to be a skill based mudd, it is actually a class based mudd, fighter & mage. Try being both and you will see failure in both. Why not allow players to "specialize" in fighting, yet be able to learn some magic, and vise versa. In lieu of a learning penalty, put a skill cap penalty in. If you are a fighter specialist, your magic will go no higher then say, expert or master, and similarly for a mage learning fighting. Ungoliant |
| 4: [May 12 1999] re: Mages (Kythalus) |
| I'd like to start off by saying that, I support specialization, in theory. However, I would like to know more about exactly what you're proposing... Currently, mages aren't specialized at all, so how would you deal with all the mages who already have a whole lot of the spells? and how specialized would mages be? would I wind up being able to learn only half the spells? more? less? How many specializations would there wind up being? Are you just talking about raising learning difficulty some, how would it prevent people from as Merkle said, just learning them higher? I think that specialization might be a good idea... but to make it work I think you're going to wind up needing to add a bunch of spells... Give us a clearer plan and we'll see. Kythalus |
| 5: [May 12 1999] an idea i about balancing (Bishop) |
| I personally think that adding more spell compoents would add to magic alot. i know some spells need material to cast , but i think if more spells needed this it would help alot of areas. for one would limit mages to the extend of only casting a spell as much as materials he has in possesion. (how ever i do mean compoents in the actuall casting not practice or atleast not being used in practice) weird and strange things would open the economy up a little, paying for al those strange things and may even add a animal or two or a new craft who knows. as for spells being spread around .. i wish they get spread my way (hehe) i think its fairly balanced.. actually one could argu the point that it takes a few actual years to get great in magic. but a few mere months to be a great fighter.. well only my opinon, -)- Bishop -(- |
| 6: [May 13 1999] Magic (Vespiel) |
| Hello. I am not a mage, but I have been playing here for a while, and I thought my view may either help the debate a little or at least amuse someone :) In any case, here is my view on only few of the things brought up: Firstly, the saying that it takes years to become a great mage and only a short time to be a good fighter seems quite true, but I don't think that is far from the realities of a medieval fantasy world like ours. Magic is an incredible power, a mystical strength, that only those of the strong will can tap into with any profit. The way of the sword is also dificult, but much more down-to-earth in comparison, and it often requires little mental brilliance... just training. So, fighters learn their craft quicker, but theirs is a much more dangerous path. You need to only slip for a moment, and not block that hammer coming your way, and your career is pretty much over. By the same token, I also think that the fact that a powerful mage, when prepared, is more powerful than a fighter is quite how it should be. After all, that mage spent years of patient study of the very powerful arcane arts. It must pay off somehow. He denounced the sword and physical regiment in light of something it takes a lot of mental discipline and anguish to attain. Yes, powerful mages of legend were forces to contend with. Most fantasy mythologies are filled with such figures. So, personally, in the humble opinion of this scout (and once scavenger), the balance on that level is fine. I just wanted to comment on that. I also believe specialization in magic would be both itriguing and beneficial to RP (different mages would be masters at different things), but I don't profess to know magic here well enough yet :) However, since economy here is one of the things most newbies fall in love from very early on, I like the idea of the components for mages. They could stimulate both economy and RP. The simple components would be tied into economy, while the more unique ones would be hard to find, prompting larger prices or hiring of warrior (and mage?) teams to gather them. Finally, I also humbly believe that spells that would affect warriors and other professions (perhaps some spells that help artisans? farmers? lumberers?) would go a long way in making more interaction between classes. As a warrior, I would respect a mage even more, and seek his/her aid, if she could cast spells on that would benefit me in battle. So, that's my two suns (that's right, suns! I am a working cat :P) Vespiel |
| 7: [May 13 1999] mages (Solis) |
| really quickly i think theres alot of possible downfalls to the specialization idea, most of us agree that if its a question of balance, then we dont want things taken away from one side, but rather added to the other. i think if you make bonuses for learning similar spells and penalties for learning different spells then you might get specialized mages and this might serve your purpose, which im not too sure what that is, but if your plan is just to all out keep mages from being able to be generic all together, then i think nothing but bad things and people (not me) but people giving up playing this game i look at it like doctoring, there are your primary care doctors, who can be all general, and know a little of everything but not make too much money and not know too much about anything, or your primary care doctors who know a little more about one type of thing, like internists, and a little less about everything else, and then you have your true specialists who are great at very specific things but only have base knowledge of other stuff. this can prolly be facilitated with some kind of coordinated learning curve, and like a previous writer, i think it would be great if people could multiclass maybe not to the extent that they could be agawell fighters and expert mages but maybe vg mage/fighters etc, i dunno, just throwing that last thing out there, hopefully it doesnt detract from my point. also lastly, i think, and hope others agree, that if youu put enough time (even if its years) into your character that you SHOULD be able to do some of these things like know all the spells or multiclass, or whatever, cuz why put a cap on things except just to limit fun, i mean make it as hard as you want, to accomplish these things, but make it always possible for those who would put in the time. cuz really, our characters is the way we have fun, seeing them grow and change and well im babbling. s/s (sorry if this went on and on) |
| 8: [May 13 1999] Components. (Gered) |
| The big problem here, is that practicing *does* require the components be used up. Given that practicing a spell to a usable level requires hundreds if not thousands of casts, components just aren't practical. Component-dependent spells tend to end up unused for that reason, except for the three really critical ones: pc, ress, reinc. Other component using spells, like daring's_rage and guiding_light, just don't see much if any use. Making more spells component dependent will just result in the same thing happening to them. Gered |
| 9: [May 16 1999] Re: Magic (Kimar) |
| I have to agree with the point made earlier ( I don't remember by who) that the problem is not really 'who is more powerful' but more 'who is more diverse.' With the current spells available it is more likely that a mage can do just about everything necessary to complete quests, while a fighter may require magical assistance. What would help balance the game a little is not the making more/less powerful of either 'class' but more making 'partying' more important. If mages 'needed' fighters to complete quests or explore as fighters appear to need mages, the game would probably achieve balance to a better degree than by any other means. Just my two cents, Kimar |
| 10: [May 16 1999] Spheres (Biblius) |
| After listening to all of your comments, let me first outline the change that's been proposed. The Spheres of magic. Magic would be divided up into 15 different spheres, of which one, metamagic, would be usable by any mage. The other 14 would make up 7 distinct pairs of conflicting spheres. Any one mage would have access to roughly 8 / 15ths of the spells at most. Using a spell from one of the 14 spheres would give you a sort of "resonance" to that sphere. This resonance would then interefere with the casting of spells from the opposing sphere. This would not be simply an addition to difficulty, it would be an additional chance of critical failure with that spell (before the normal casting roll for the spell). If a mage is very strongly attuned to a particular sphere, casting spells in the opposing sphere would have a failure rate somewhere around 95% no matter what his skill. It is important to note that attuning yourself to one sphere doesn't mean that you become "less" attuned to it's opposite. If you try working both spheres, you'll simply make it more difficult to use both. The resonance however, will slowly fade over time. If you abstain from casting spells of one sphere for a long period of time, your resonance will diminish to nothing. More specific answers: Each set of spheres will be roughly balanced, so that there won't be an overwhelming advantadge to picking sphere A over sphere B. And somewhere between 20 and 40 new spells will be added to flesh out spheres which presently don't have as much in them. For mages who already have many spells, how it will basicly work is this: You will have to look over your spells and decide which spheres you really use, or want to use. You'll keep your skill in the spells, but will find it quite difficult to use them if you're attuned to an opposing sphere. Most mages should keep between 60-70 percent of their spells, since you should be able to pick the spheres that you've got the most invested in. |
| 11: [May 16 1999] attunement (Serafin) |
| will there be any way of knowing how attuned you are? outside of critfailing alot at oppositely charged spells? sounds fun :) |
| 12: [May 16 1999] re: attunement (Biblius) |
| Yes, there will most likely be a spell such as detect_attunement in the metamagic sphere which will detect resonances. |
| 13: [May 16 1999] Attunement (Sans) |
| And this detect attunement will also be attuned to a sphere I assume, making it more difficult to cast some other spell. Quite a scheme. What good are spells when you cannot use them for say a 2 hour period of time until you attune properly? I know if I suddenly lost the ability to use parry I would be up the proverbial creek. While not completely understanding the whole realm of magic in my time here, I would think someone like a healer would be affected grossly byt this change. If they had a spell that they used as protection or self defense, and were attuned otherwise, splat goes the healer. In my recent readings of these boards, I noticed a message saying that the creators were not trying to take away things from mages, but it would seem established players of magic are going get the short end of this stick. Glad she isn't a magic person, Sans R. |
| 14: [May 16 1999] Well... (Gered) |
| I can't say I'm all that happy about this system, but I know it'll probably go ahead regardless. One thing though; if it's going to be done, then delink alignment from spell success. Otherwise, people are going to be getting double penalized, especially if a group of spells contains ones of differing alignments. Gered |
| 15: [May 16 1999] re: Attunement (Biblius) |
| If'd you'd read more carefully, you'd notice that I specified a detect_attunment spell would wind up in the metamagic sphere... which is the one sphere every mage can use. |
| 16: [May 16 1999] Re: Alignment (Biblius) |
| Regarding alignment, yes, alignment won't be a penalty for casting spells under this plan. It would possibly be removed as a consideration for casting spells, or possibly even done away with altogether. I'd also like to reiterate that this is all in the design stages right now. We are trying to gather your input on what we should do. Please don't hesitate to let us know what you think, nothing here is set in stone. |
| 17: [May 17 1999] Spheres and such ... (Pixel) |
Surely such a major change to the magic system here should be kept for Accursed Lands ? I'm sure the amount of creator effort to code, test and balance a new magic system would be large, and could probably be applied better in other areas. Pixel |
| 18: [May 17 1999] re:Spheres and such ... (Biblius) |
| I'm afraid that there is no longer any official connection between dartmud and Accursed Lands like you seem to be suggesting. So waiting for them to do it would be rather futile (I believe they're using their own magic system). As for the creator effort involved, it's this simple... we're all volunteers, and within reason, we work on what interests us. As of now, there are several of us interested in improving the magic system. Therefore, work will be done upon it. I hope this clears things up. |
| 19: [May 17 1999] Spheres (Ungoliant) |
| From a Former Mage: I myself am not all that fond of the approach being taken. I believe the current system, where alignment is used, is more affective in tuning a mage to the spells he more often uses. I believe a more practical effect needs to be invistigated. Most mages spend 99.9% of their time learning spells, as opposed to actually using them. Of the time they actually use spells, healing spells are used far more often then any others. The times a mage actually needs to go into battle are few and far between, while the number of times a newbie takes too many blows to the head is far more common. I believe the practical affect of such a system would be to skew the majority of mages toward the healing end of the spectrum and away from the combat end. From another standpoint, when I was a mage, at one instance I might have cast a ROL on someone, soon after that occasional visit to shelob where a gfb might prove useful. Now say one chose to be just a healer and that gfb was no longer truely available. While the "great mage" with both gfb and rol could be feared, a "great mage" e.g. Gered, if he was stuck with just healing spells, would be considerably less feared by the occasional pain in the ass, player killer. Finally, while I have said this before, once again this system is taking dartmud from a skill based to a class based system. Currently we have fighter and mage (thief is not a true class). If implimented we will have combat mage, healer mage, and warrior. I believe dartmud, a game where many hours of play are required to achieve greatness in any skill, should remove impidements to learning instead of put new ones up. Ungoliant |
| 20: [May 17 1999] thoughts (Solis) |
| heh, read at your own risk, as i take no resposibility for the amount of babbling which may go on in this post. first i take offense to comments, like "sweeping changes like these should be saved for some other mud" as i for one am hooked on this mud, and dont wanna switch to some other just because some would have us stay the same, i want whatever great ideas there are for muds, to be implemented here. as this is where i play :) secondly, if youve never played a mage and dont really understand huge parts of the discussion, then why not try to understand more fully before lashing out and responding negatively. actually that goes for even if you do play a mage, ask more questions, make more suggestions, instead of just saying no this is no good, that is no good, i know i too am guilty of this but im having a moment of clarity right now :) as i understand it, one mage without dying could be a healer and a warrior mage in one lifetime, the difference is, he wont be able to do it, within seconds of each other, or simultaniously by just casting at high power or practicing up to godly, maybe this will somehow mean we all practice less and go out and do more, in fact, if you'd had conversations with a creator you'd know that the range of things that will be possible will be much greater than those now, cuz now we are basically talking about two spells, gfb and one of the top healer spells, take your pick, and yes, if nothing were added having to choose between the two would suck, but you havent even asked what will be added, or taken the opportunity to suggest things to be added, suggestions are being asked for, here's your chance to get that spell you always wanted to research. in any case, ask more questions, get more facts, make some suggestions, and argue about different points, but dont just say "this sucks im out" cuz like gered said, its gonna happen whether we want it to or not. so why not try to help mold it into something good, instead of waiting till after the fact to point out all the faults, (ive been guilty of this too :) ok done babbling for now s.s. (a, i still think this is a ripoff for fighter thieves :) dont kick me, plz |
| 21: [May 17 1999] re: Magic (Desla) |
| Biblius is the point creator on the magic spheres idea, but he's by no means the only coder interested in making magic balance better. Here are some of my thoughts: * For as long as we've been considering sweeping changes to Magic, we've (collectively) been brainstorming ways to get mages off their butts and into more adventuring. We are absolutely NOT going to revamp magic in a way that keeps the practicing/really using ratio the same. * Someone suggested spell components. I, personally, don't like the idea, but I can see how many merits it has, especially, as was pointed out, in our complex economic model. It may very well work its way into this, too. Besides, if you need a dragon tooth to cast super spell X, and dragon teeth go for 50 suns, we can up the learning rate tremendously. * The spheres are not going to be just like alignments only different. * Accursed Lands is not Dartmud. Several of us here wanted to make DM II, but Accursed Lands' vision is not the same as Dartmud's--they're more cousin muds than parent/child. That's why many of us who went off to code on AL are back coding here--Celetar and myself, for two. * Another idea actively under consideration is some sort of spell point trade in/exchange for the new system--such that those of you who existed before specialization don't get ripped off, but can put those hard-earned skill points to work elseways. And again, let me echo Biblius's statement that all these (and many more. actually) changes are not final, they're not set in stone, they may not even happen. Biblius is *actively* soliciting input, not merely declaring what your future will be when the result has been pre-decided. If you have ideas, then speak out--you will be read. Desla PS. You'll be taken more seriously, BTW, if you take the time to punctuate, spell, and capitalize properly. Ideas are clothed in your grammar, and it is hard to see through the slovenliness of some posts to see the merits of the underlying posts. |
| 22: [May 18 1999] Magic Changes (Vespiel) |
| Hello :) Firstly, I believe that saying "it's going to happen whether we want it or not" regarding the new magic system is a bit unfair. Firstly, we are, after all, discussing this here, are we not? It has been brought before the players, and while there have been some suggestions, the majority of the talk on the subject from the powers that be (TM) is the process of seeking our input. Secondly, by putting things this way, this whole idea is starting to sound like some form of punishment :) In reality, however, it is supposed to be an improvement. And improvement for the players, which needs to be coded in. I doubt a creator in his right mind would spend time coding systems which weren't at least believed to improve the game. And thus this discussion :) I don't mean to step on anyone's toes, however. A lot of good input has been already made, and I just noted this silly little fact :) My humble suggestion for today stems from the fact that someone noted that mages stay in their abodes and spend their life practicing skills. It's true. When you move about you don't meet many mages at all. Mainly combat oriented folk, or thieves. Yes, the world is dangerous, but I am quite confident that many warriors would be happy to protect and accompany mages around. The recent code of the warrior guild regarding the healers seems to support that. I know I would. But the mages rarely need that much protection, guiding or aid, because they rarely get out. At least from my observation (correct me if I am wrong). I believe the spell components system (for at least some spells) would help. This way, one needs to somehow acquire components for the powerful spells, and this may mean more interractivity with the environment or other classes. Like someone mentioned, however, this may present problems in learning, so for learning itself, perhaps the costs should be drastically lowered or taken out altogether. The latter still may present a problem of one being sheltered in training, but at least if you wish to use your hard-practiced spells, you will need to hire others, commision commodities, or get warriors to work... which in turn will require more magely protection. Just my two cents. I find this discussion somehow fascinating, so I would like to contribute :) Vespiel |
| 23: [May 18 1999] Recent possible changes to magecraft (Spiffy) |
| I must say that quite frankly I am kind of excited about some of these changes. Not only because it seems more of a fair system, but because I really do want to see what sort of new spells and ideas come out of it. I'm not even a mage and I am seriously thinking that if this change goes into effect I may just try it out and see what its like. Just to let you know I heard a few of the creators talking about some of the possible new spells an spheres. Sounds like some real cool stuff. Keep brainstorming guys. Spiffy |
| 24: [May 18 1999] Responses to the last 5 posts (long) (Biblius) |
| Just for a change, let me try and respond to each post individually and specifically. Ungoliant: There are several aspects to the new changes which may mitigate the concerns you have. First of all, practice will attune your aura as well as real casting (although perhaps to a lesser extent). However, learning from books will not. Basicly the idea is that mages will still be able to trade spells indiscriminately, but they won't be able to use them indiscriminately. (I know, there are some problems with spellbooks, those will be looked into, and modified until it's at least reasonable that you can get and pass along a spell without requiring you to use it). What resonances a mage winds up with will more likely be a product of choice, rather than accident. Next, it's not going to be a simple division of "combat mages" and "healers". There's a reason why I'm pushing for 15 different spheres, and that reason is the possible number of combinations. Actually, in the current model, healers still could use fire bolt spells without penalty. The spheres are divided primarily by the form of magic, not the effect. What this means is that there will probably be spells in different spheres which have similar effects. There wouldn't be a "combat" sphere per se, there would be a "fire" sphere, with the bolt spells and other firey effects. Finally, well, it depends on what you call a "class". One of the current suggestions is that fighters would also be allowed to enter into one of the 15 spheres. But it's not going to be as streamlined as you seem to be worried about. There are 14 spheres which you can pick from, and you'll be able to pick 7 of them. Basicly, there would be 128 different combinations of spheres that open to a mage. I'd hope most people would feel this to be enough. On the other hand, yes there will be some spells you can't use. This is basicly a necessary result of us wanting to release a lot more spells. Just of the top of my head, some of the new spells may involve: Flame_shield flame_sword encase flame_sink hail_storm scry disguise_other empower_weapon cloak_mind animate_corpse drain_life flight lightning_bolt feather_fall stoneskin halt_decay haste and yes, more suggestions are welcome. Solis: Yes, you're correct, it would be quite possibly to make the change from one sphere to another, it would just require waiting a fair amount of time. Most of the other points were adressed earlier in this post. Desla: Yes, practicing right now can use a bit of a modifcation... Some of the recent proposals (such as a check on how recently you have really cast the spell modifying the difficulty) have promise. I'll echo Desla's point on spell componants... useful but... maybe. Right now we may certainly add components to new spells (especially powerful ones) but the issue of practice using up spell componants, and the ease with which a crash could strip a mage of his spells should be addressed. Alignment was a simple polar system. The current sphere model is basicly 7 independent pairs of opposing spheres, leading to a 2^7 possibile number of combinations. Plus a sphere which everyone can access. We may come to the point of letting people trade in useless spells, however... I would like to point out that we're trying our best not to have to mess with that. After all, you would still be able to acquire such spells and trade them, and if you ever decide to change spheres your previously "worthless" spells might become suddenly useful again. Vespiel: Yes, nothing is set in stone, and we are trying to get as much input as possible. Yes, mages are stay at homes in general... this might change some if they weren't quite as vulnerable to combat, but in another sense it's somwhat natural. Many warriors might be happy to escort a mage, but I don't think many mages would enjoy asking them. Spell components could help interation true... but I question whether most mages would go out and get them, or just buy the components they need. Spiffy: I'm glad some people see this as positive. A fair number of the new spells will involve things mages can do for fighters and crafters as well. Allright, that's long enough, questions, comments, ideas, stick them up. If you have specific concerns you can also mail me. |
| 25: [May 18 1999] Placing permanent spells on items (Spiffy) |
| I read a book here on DM that talked about castinga light spell on a scepter (the nifty round end of the scepter). Is this a possibility in the future? I mean, would someone be able to craft a sword (possibly made out of some new metal that would be more likely to hold a spell better) and then have a made cast a spell into the sword thus allowing a permanently enchanted weapon? get all that? :) Spiffy |
| 26: [May 18 1999] Magic (Vespiel) |
| Yes, Desla, I agree that it is quite likely that mages won't get out to acquire their components, but will most likely buy them. That's however still a viable option, I believe. Now, mages will need money to purchase some things, and it doesn't fall fromt he sky (unfortunately :P). Secondly, it will still cater to those willing to make/acquire special components and sell them to the local stores... or to the mages directly, if they wish to cut out the middle man (sorry Martricio, nothing personal :P). This should still work. However, I do see some problems presented. A crash or reboot would take the components away, unless the mage has access to a storage room. An alternative would be something similar to the pouches that hold money, except for spell components. However, this may create database size problems, correct? Not sure here. In any case, this is still my train of thought on the components idea, and if it has already been ruled out, just ignore this :) But I think this new idea for magic is starting to look really cool. Everything here on DartMUD seems so intricate, so it would make a lot of sense that magic would be too. Here are a few ideas for new spells that I could find useful. If they already exist and I simply don't know... forgive :) Animal_Affinity: A spell that does not summon animals and makes them do your bidding, but makes any natural animals (not monsters) non-hostile towards the caster, and perhaps makes them see the caster as one of their own species. One could avoid that nasty bear in the mountains, or simply explore the animal-infested lands. Camp_Fire: It may be in already, but this spell would create a campfire. Not useful you say? Very useful. Especially when adventuring and trying to stay IC. You can cook on such a fire, mark a territory or keep animals away (which would be a good reason to study this spell). Blinding_Light: A spell that simply tweaks with the lighting attribute of the room, but create a reverse effect. It would make the room so bright that no one could see its contents. Or perhaps it should be the opposite, and the spell would be called 'Darkness'. In any case, the more powerful the mage, the longer the effect. Any deity-related spells, more priestly in nature. They could then bring our gods into the frey as well. Perhaps it was the gods who released those spells? Perhaps they are some form of manifestation of their powers? And most importantly, such spells would exemplify the nature of the gods in certain way (dark god = dark spells, etc). Those are just a few ideas, although I have quite a few. Didn't want to spam all to death, and wanted some confirmation that such input is at all useful, till giving more :) Thanks. Vespiel |
| 27: [May 19 1999] fighters casting magic (Serafin) |
| though ive always been a proponent of this, i'd come to believe that this could be seriously unbalancing, not in terms of the whole fighter vs mage who is more powerful? discussion, but in terms of people needing other people to do stuff, like adventuring or whatnot. the image of a agawel fighter casting gfb or whatever the new most powerful combat spell is, is an exciting one, but i hope im not alone here in saying, i dont think itll be good for the game. though i would love to learn to shift shapes, i mean really really love to :) i have to ask that the ramifications of this decision be seriously considered. and i dont wanna say dont do it, cuz part of me is really interested in seeing what kind of characters would come out of this, ok so i have some suggestions, cuz i figure, after that post telling people not to be negative, i gotta represent. 1. if there are 15 spheres and all mages can learn meta plus 7 more, does this mean fighters get meta and one more, or just one? ok thats more like a question. 2. it should be harder to learn if one is multiclassing than if not, maybe not as hard as it is now, but certainly not as easy as if you werent. 3. there are incentives for being a straight mage, like getting more spheres, but i dont see incentives for being a straight fighter, maybe if there were some new skills, like the special attacks/defenses or researched ideas, that could not be learned by fighter/mages then we might we people making choices, (er that line should read then we might have people making choices) instead of everyone always being the same. i know that special attacks and the like always get turned down cuz of their unbalancing nature, but im thinking people would still learn them even if they didnt radically change the outcome of a battle, just to have something different and fun. 4. maybe some spells just shouldnt be open to anyone except pure mages, that way keeping their usefulness in parties and the like, you may say they will still be useful cuz a fighter can only learn one sphere, but what if everyone in the fighters guild picked a different sphere :) then they would never need a mage again, they'd just party with each other. 5. back to 3, i really think this incentives to being a straight fighter is a good way to go, even if new skills are not it, maybe just faster learning. i dunno, im just here to point some stuff out, not to come up with the solutions! for that we have nimbus :) 6. and last, i think right now we could be on the verge of something great where the diversity of characters and their interactions could make this blah blah blah, the point is, freedom of choice in what you want to be, is a great thing, it can lead to all kinds of interesting and distinct characters and fun, but first you gotta be given a choice, and second, it has to be a one road or the other thing, otherwise the only difference between one person and the other is how much they've practiced and in the end, everyone is the same. this is especially true at the high end, for both mages and fighters, now for mages it looks like its gonna change, i just hope that someone out there is thinkin up ways to do the same for fighters. ok this is long enough, will continue on the combat board. serafin |
| 28: [May 19 1999] Gods (Spiffy) |
| The idea has already been rejected, several times. Even though their are mud gods there are no benefits to worshipping. Any Worshipping you might do is strictly roleplay. Spiffy |
| 29: [May 20 1999] Responses once more. (Biblius) |
| Once again, responding in order: Spiffy: On enchanted weapons: Yes, we're tending strongly towards some form of enchanted weapons. As of right now, there are several possible ways that have been discussed. The most attractive that I see right now, is a method by which a rune could be inscribed upon a weapon, and then somehow activated by the wielder. The weapon would suddenly glow, or flame, or get much lighter for a period of time around a few minutes, and then return to normal. The rune would be capable of being activated several times a day, and would usually result in a marked increase of effectiveness. Alternately, ways of crafting more generic "enchanted weapons" are possible, however they can't be too much more effective than normal weapons (we don't want to turn all fights into a question of who's got the best equipment) As for the specific light spell on a sword question, keep your eyes open. Vespiel: Yes, the storage of magic reagants in pouches much like moneybags is being looked into, and I believe it likely we'll move to some form's of ingredients being necessary for more spells. Exactly how many, and how dependent, is still up for discussion. Your Spell ideas: Animal_afinity : quite possible. Camp_fire : this probably won't work as a spell, for the simple reason that it would work best as a crftable skill. A spell may be introduced that will act as a tinderbox, but gathering wood, and making a campfire seems like more of an oportunity for a skill to be used than requiring a spell. Blinding Light : There are actually a whole array of light and darkness spells out there, and I don't know if it would work quite like you've put it out... on the other hand, a spell that would create a very brief, very intense, burst of light might have the effect you're looking for. Gods are not in the cards, I'd advise you to read Desla's earlier post on the matter (on this board). Serafin: I understand your concerns about the best fighter with an agaawel gfb (or whatever the equivilent of that turns out to be). I don't think ultimately that it's going to be a problem though. To flesh out the idea more, let me say, basicly, the goal here is to give non-pure mages more things they can do, without giving them so many of the abilities of the pure mages that the pure mages are obsolete. One of the ways of doing this would be to organize each sphere into greater and lesser spells within the sphere. The non-pure mages would only be able to learn and use the lesser spells (this same idea could be modified into a sort of sliding scale, basicly it would limit the non-pure mages to the lesser spells in a sphere). As for the number of spheres that a fighter could get ahold of... Right now we've just said one, but it really hasn't been discussed. If the idea of lesser spells within a sphere works, it may be possible for some fighters to reasonably learn in more than one. (although the more away from fighting you tend, it will start to get harder to learn fighting). Combat is it's own discussion really, and some other creators are more in depth with it than I. Spiffy: Basicly right. Let me now go on to flesh out a modified idea for spheres. A normal mage could be using spells within 7 different chosen spheres, without penalites. However, what about giving the mages who used less, an advantadge? For mages who specialize solely in the magic of one or two spheres, perhaps they'd be able to cast the spells in their spehres better than their skills would normally suggest? This might also add to the usefulness of young mages. If they specialize in a single sphere they may be able to become useful in that sphere long before they otherwise would? As always, comments, ideas, welcome. |
| 30: [May 20 1999] One thing I _would_ like to see (Pixel) |
As I hope the Creators are aware, improving the spell casting skill beyond a certain point is possibly one of the most tedious parts of the game. True, the reward is greater aura, but it is a very slow process leading to it. I'm not saying sc improves should neccessarily come much faster than they do now (it would be nice of course, but I won't ask for it), however if perhaps they could actually come at about the same rate during normal spell practice as when using "the trick" to improve sc, or even slightly less frequently but more reliably, it would make a great improvement to the interest this place holds. (at the moment, I get an average of perhaps 1-2 sc+ per hour. Practicing (or casting) spells gives about 1 every blue moon. I feel that I will be a much more effective mage (especially as a catfolk who has never body-swapped for higher power, and in fact went slightly lower at my last reinc ) with more aura than I have now, and that means I need effective ways to raise sc - and at the moment there's only one.) (oh yes, Creators - if you do start revamping magic, please be careful not to accidentally take away the current sc improving method without including some form of replacement ... ) Pixel |
| 31: [May 20 1999] Spheres and Fighters and Mages Going Out (Ungoliant) |
| On Spheres of Magic After reading the discussion on how spheres will work, as types of magic versus "healing vs combat", I am much more in favor of the idea. A mage would not be limited to healing or fighting but could do both with specialization in say "fire magic" or however the spheres are dividided. This allows the divirsity for a number of situations but still gives the mage a feeling of specialization. I am a firm believer in the idea mentioned of lesser versus greater spheres.As a fighter currently, I would like the opportunity to learn spells, but the current learning penalty is too severe to allow that. By implimenting a one sphere choice, and only those spells in the lesser spehere (e.g. red and orange spells not yellow green), a fighter could learn some magic but never be as great a mage as a true pure mage. I believe the skill interference penalty, however, should be dropped to allow fighters to learn some magic. A similar skill cap or skill type cap could be done for mages learning some fighting though the restriction would be less obvious. On Getting Mages off their Butts The truth is neither mages nor fighters really get off their butts. I have agaawel fighting skills, these obtained by practice. When in those rare instances when actual combat is required, the battle is as short as possible, and little is learned. The problem isn't the learning part, learning from long practice castings or long practice fighting is fine. If you want us off our butts we must be given an incentive, a clear incentive to do so. NPC's must exist, and must repop that are difficult enough so that a fighter could not solo (or a mage) and at the same time provides a useful item that is not otherwise available. Why not drop a sun? or 40 spices or 10 ingots of gold? The NPC's must exist that give us incentive to kill them, and require a number of people. For example, I currently kill shelob with 1 or 2 others to get amulets when availabe. This is a fine "top of the line mage/fighter quest". Others with lesser rewards might be considered. A lot of spells are to be introduced. Maybe at the bottom of a dungeon with groupls of 5 orcs (like Ugluk I have helped kill to retrieve a body). This is an old debate, and only semi related to magic. Of course if spell components do come into play, there is one other item that could be a mini - reward worth partying for. Mages and Money One last note, if spell components are required, you can not expect most newbie/mid level mages to be able to afford them. With money reappearing only at reboots, for the most part only those who live in castles, and especially those who are fighters can obtain money quickly. I have been both a poor newbie mage without a room, and new a reasonably wealthy fighter living in a castle.Trust me, the rich get richer! Ungoliant |
| 32: [May 20 1999] Spheres (Baraki) |
| I think I fail to get it The spheres and specialization ideas seem very interesting but I do not get wether the following is being attempted or not: to downgrade mages in power. To balance them with warriors. This seemed to be the point at the beginning of the thread then faded away. If this is so, as I believe it is, then like Pixel but more generaly I wonder what will happen to the learning rate. Like it's been said (I think), with a fighter you can kill say Grashlin in a week. I've played four months and I don't think I can do it yet with my mage. If this continued to be so, it'd be patheticaly unbalanced because what would be the point of spending insane amounts of time on a mage just to reach *the same* that a warrior can get in much less time. Part of the charm of choosing magic is that there is (theoreticaly) no power cap to magic, or if there is, the max is higher, but much slower and harder to get to. If this is what being fixed, francly, I dont think it's broken. Will there be a power max? If so the game will be over sooner. People already do occasionaly get bored, are we sure we need more? I don't have much hard data at hand (heh) but I know I've seen several fighter-reborn-mages but I don't know any ex-mages fighters besides Ungoliant. Magic is more interesting and has more possibilities, as it is. And it remains to be seen wether "interesting" can be separated from "power". Also, another thing I wonder... The killing Grashlin example, might not be good because with specialization, the intention is precisely that some mages will never have the ability to kill anything (maybe even most mages?). Instead they'll have other things. Effectively, at least with some sphere set choices, the mage would never reach anything close to self sufficiency. By this I mean things like the ability to travel the hexes more or less safely, kill certain things, maybe even kill other players... There are like 6 extremely strategic spells that get this for the mage. Bai, a bolt or two, animals, a light... And you're in bussiness. If these are separated into hard to combine spheres, then... If we had hundreds of thousands of players maybe this would work, because there would always be demand for the abilities that the non self-sufficient specializations can offer. But we don't have that many players. Are we sure that the people who choose the weirdest and "weakest" sets of spheres won't just basicaly bore and rot sitting at the golem? How many of us are willing to spend thousand of play hours developing a character for wich there will basicaly be no way to get fun experiences except if other players give you a chance? Sorry if I put it too black/white instead of gray, I tend to do that. Basicaly the point of this note is this: Are we sure it's broken that wich we want to fix? Are we sure that this would fix it? Sure, specialization and spheres and the possibility of dozens of new spells sound great, but it's my belief that the current system (considered by itself by someone who never played a warrior) is a great achievement. just my 2 blue casino chips --he who plays baraki |
| 33: [May 20 1999] why have spheres? (Desla) |
| Try this one on for size: We haven't released much for mages for a while. Why? Because to do so would be unbalancing. So here's a large part of why I want to see a radical change in magic: SO I CAN RELEASE SOME OF THESE !@#%^ SPELLS WE'VE CODED OVER THE YEARS BUT ARE TOO UNBALANCING UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM. And heck, we might even do research if we knew that at most half of the PC mages would have the spell. Desla |
| 34: [May 20 1999] Re: Baraki (Spiffy) |
| Do you like the system of magic as it is? Or would you like to see a more interesting version? Personally I think the current system is somewhat dry. I like the Sphere system of magic, Hell, it will allow for better roleplay too. Fire mages and Water mages living together, mass hysteria! Spiffy |
| 35: [May 21 1999] Spheres, a rough sketch (Celetar) |
| Alot of confusion on this topic has surfaced, and I believe some of it can be made more easily understood by listing out the spheres we're currently thinking of, so we're on the same wavelength. I won't be listing out what specific spell goes in what sphere, in part because we haven't finalized the list. MetaMagic: Metamagic includes things like focus spells - spells that affect magic itself. No opposing sphere. Divination: Spells which detect and scrye. Opposed by... Illusion: Spells which conceal, or produce flashy effects. Heat: Spells involving heat and flame. Some utility, but mostly damaging. Opposed by... Cold: Spells of cold and ice. Very well-rounded, mixing defense, offense, and some utility spells. Atmosphere: Spells of air and electricity. Utlity + damage. Opposed by... Earth: Spells of earth, stone, and nature. Mostly defensive. Space: Magic to circumvent distances. Transportation spells and such. Opposed by... Time: Spells which affect the perception of, use of, or in some cases (maybe :) the passage of time. Life Energy: Spells which restore or imbue life energy or health. Opposed by (naturally)... Death Energy: Spells which destroy life, or enhance death. Soul: Spells which directly effect the living soul. Opposed by... Mind: Spells which alter, effect, or control the mind. Enchantment: Spells which imbue objects or people with new properties. Opposed by... Shapeshifting: Spells which alter or enhance the properties of objects or people. Note: The above spheres are our current working list, but are quite mutable. Nothing in the whole spheres proposal is at this point set in stone. I offer them as an example of the general kind of thing we're talking about when we mention spheres... I assume that if/when we move further along with this, we will post a more definitive list of what we plan to use, for feedback from you players. -- Celetar |
| 36: [May 22 1999] Spheres (Gered) |
| As a suggestion, perhaps Drop Soul as a sphere, placing those spells into the Life and Death spheres as appropriate, then have Body as the opposed sphere for mind. Body, obviously, would include things like the jonathans spells, thh, qv, etc, as well as any new ones. This would take some away from Shapeshifting, presumably, although jonathans, thh, qv, etc, don't seem to be 'shapeshifting' in the usual sense. Perhaps rename it to Transformation and have it focus more on items than on livings. Gered |
| 37: [May 23 1999] Responses the Third. (Biblius) |
| Once again: Pixel: Yes, we'll be sure to make it still possible to raise your spell casting skills. I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about besides that. If spell casting improves came as frequently when just randomly practicing spells as when you focus on spell casting, exactly how would that help the game? That would speed up mages learning, I don't see much other point to it. Perhaps I missed what you were suggesting. Ungoliant: I would prefer a less arbitrary design for non-mages learning spells than just assigning spells lesser or greater spheres. Perhaps if it's based more directly on the aura cost of the spell. Yes, I completely agree with you, to get any of our players "off their butts" we need to give them incentives. This will be looked into. As for the poor mage and spell components, I believe if magic is to move more into a component based system, cheap plentiful components for the smaller spells are necessary. Pouches that keep the components like moneybags keep money would also be needed. Baraki First of all, I take issue with the implied direct relation of power to "ability to kill things". That's the source of much of a simple fighter's pwoer, but it's only part of what mages can do. That aside, let me see if I can answer your question about the goal of these changes. As I see it, the goal is quite clearly to lower the relative power levels of any one mage. By lowering the relative power level, waht I mean is that while a mage may (eventually) be able to do enough new things that she will be quite comparable to what was possible before the change, but because of the many additional areas of magic that she cannot use, she'd have relative to the rest of the mud, less power. In the short term, mages will definitely be less powerful, as some of their spells would not be usable under the proposed change. As new spells are added that will change some, and hopefully more will also be done with fighters to give them a bit more diversity. Desla: Right. Spiffy: Hopefully, yes more roleplaying opportunites will be created with the spheres system. Celetar: The current proposed spheres are basicly as he stated although I'd like to clarify some of his spheres, as the views we have on them are changing fairly regularly. Specifically, enchantment spells would deal with inanimate objects, not living things. Shapeshifting would deal only with living things. As he said, all are still subject to change. Gered: The main problem with that is balance. You'd be placing all of the healing spells bascly in one sphere, life. Which would mean that the opposing sphere would then have to have enough benefits that a reasonable person might choose death instead. That's an awful lot for 2 out of 15 spheres. You're right, mind and body would be a good pair, see if you can fit them together another way? As always, ideas, comments, are all welcome. |
| 38: [May 24 1999] Healing spells and spheres. (Gered) |
| Actually, I was thinking that most of the healing spells, at least those dealing with wounds, would belong more properly in the 'Body' category. Only those actually dealing with the life essence of a person (ress, reinc) would belong in the life category. Also, is it going to be possible for a spell to belong in more than one sphere? I can see Detect_Soul fitting in both a divinatory sphere and a life sphere, While Pol's_Death_Curse could be equally a death spell and a summoning... Gered |
| 39: [May 24 1999] Stuff. (Euros) |
| I agree with Spiffy word for word. I'm not a mage, but the changes sound exciting...I've always thought magic to be rather mundane and lacking any sense of actually being a mage. (No offense intended). I doubt Euros would be ever able to learn magic according to the present discussion, but to see mages undergoing such a change does look like fun, even if met by reluctance at first. A big concern, it seems with mages, is that they won't be able to cast both healing and gfb without serious penalties. My first response was, 'Come on! They can do everything else!', but I think a serious misunderstanding was that they won't be confined to just being illusionists, they can be illusionist/ fire mage/earth mage/healer/...well, you get the point, I guess. Oh, and I think certain spells belonging to more than one sphere was brought up, Gered. Although, if you think about it, wouldn't it hurt mages? If bai belonged to illusion and mind, for example, you wouldn't be able to cast it. Aside from stating the obvious, I did have one idea. What about fusion of spells? Rather, a synergystic effect? As I always say, I don't know a lot about the code, but, for example, bai + blur = something better than each individual spell? Yes, I always use bai as an example. Neat spell. That's it, I think. Euros |
| 40: [May 25 1999] Illusion and mind. (Gered) |
| If it was those two, it wouldn't be a problem - they're opposed by divination and soul (under the current arrangement). Spells of multiple spheres would, by necessity, not belong to opposing spheres. (Of course, given how they're arranged, they shouldn't anyway.) Gered |
| 41: [May 25 1999] Multiple spheres (Desla) |
| I like the idea of multiple, nonopposing spheres for truly powerful spells. I coded paralysis a long time ago--literally, years. It's an insta-kill spell if it works, really, since the target can't fight--a few rabbits can finish off a stock-still opponent. So what spheres should paralysis belong to? Perhaps time, mind, shapehifting or enchancement (pick one)--I could even argue for putting 'earth' in there, too. Three or four spheres makes a spell something one has to go out of one's way to learn. If lots of powerful spells are multiple spheres, then a mage will have a few powerful spells, no matter which sets of spheres are chosen, but never have ALL of the most powerful spells, again, no matter which sets of spheres are chosen. Comments? Desla |
| 42: [May 25 1999] re:multi_spheres (Serafin) |
| the multispheres thing is a very cool idea as long as its not for every other spell but instead for super spells, and then the more super a spell the more spheres cuz then if you have a spell that is spheres 1,2,3,4 and you cast it, that means your flowin towards all four of those spheres and cant very well cast 5,6,7 or 8, this kinda locks you into different molds, depending on the spell, which can be a good or bad thing, but if there are enough spells of this kind like one for each combination and the spells are equal in value then people really have to make some choices, like i say though, if you make every spell like this, then i can forsee alot of problems like you could have spheres 1 to 4 but not be able to cast quite a few of the spells in those because some of them belong in part to spheres 5 6 7 or 8, 'maybe 4 spheres is just too much. like if reincarnation was some four spheres life, enchantment, blah and blazee then all healers would be constricted to those four, to be a healer (in the guild i mean) you would have to gear your learning towards those from the start, since to reinc is the goal, idealy, and that would make for less diversity instead of more, its better to have different kinds of healers, and that they can all heal but they can do different stuff from each other else all healers will be carbon copies of each other and the current problems will be fixed for most mages but not for healers. (serafin lookin out for the healers :) woops here i was thinking there we only 8 spheres :) got confused between 8 pairs of spheres and 8 spheres, on second thought, 4 is ok, for super duper spells, but back to my other point, incentives, different combinations have to have comparable incentives (spells at the top) or else all mages will gravitate towards certain combinations, and that would undue all the beautiful brainstorming that has led to this idea. |
| 43: [May 25 1999] ps (Serafin) |
| back to the 1,2,3,4 thing, (lost my train of thought before) if there are say 5 greater spells in 1, and spell a is multi for 1,2,3 and spell b is multi for 1,2,10 and spell c is for 1,3,9 then all of a sudden at most you can learn 3 of the 5 greater spells in sphere 1, which would be bad, this is just as a clarification to why you cant do this multi stuff for too many of the spells. or atleast not wit too many spheres, or maybe just not with conflicting sets of spheres, anyway, the point is the whole thing has to be really really thought out at the time of implementation. (my head hurts from all these numbers and letters so im signing off now :) serafin |
| 44: [May 25 1999] Re: Multiple spheres. (Gered) |
| I think it'd work quite well, as long as it wasn't overdone. Putting a spell into 5 different spheres would likely just result in it never being used. Putting one into two, or three for those that truly fit them, wouldn't be too bad. As has been pointed out though, only a few should have this done. Otherwise, the use of spells like that will get too complex and frustrating. (One thing important here; If spheres are added to spells, then there should be a helpfile for each (released) spell stating what sphere(s) it belongs to. Making a guessing game out of this wouldn't be entertaining at all... Gered |
| 45: [May 25 1999] What I meant. (Euros) |
| What I meant about bai belonging to two spheres, was that you wouldn't be able to cast it because you healed. Healing is the opposite of mind, and if bai belonged to two spheres, one mind and one other, well, that's what I meant. But it was just theoretical anyway. Euros |
| 46: [May 26 1999] Magic Spheres: A few implementation details (Anarion) |
| There has been talk of how to deal with mages that lose access to some of their spells because of the spheres. What about mages that have some fighting skill? I have several of the fighting skills (all at tyro and below). Will I be classified as a fighter and restricted to one sphere? Or will I be allowed to lose those fighting skills? I already have a conversation with all newbie wannabe mages about the fighter/mage choice. Now I will have a longer conversation. But, What happens to the fighter (or mage) that didn't know (s)he made a choice about gaining a certain skill that will limit his/her skill growth later? Will there be a way to loose skills? Right now we can just live with the learning penalty. In the magic spheres system, will we be able to live with the penalty? -Anarion the half-troll |
| 47: [May 26 1999] Magic (Vespiel) |
| Spheres: Wow, I really like the spheres! Very nice system. Great opposites and seemingly enough to generate both interest and maybe even some roleplaying. Power: Hmm, I don't necessarily agree with the fact that killing Grashlin, for example, makes one powerful. In fact, I don't believe killing anything is a measure of any power. It makes you good at combat, that's all. But with the diversity that DM presents over other muds, I hope we have moved away from the silly notion that one joins a MUD only to kill monsters, till you finally get that superbeast with Boots O' Power. Sure, mages may have a hard time killing Grashlin. But warriors will have a helluva time trying to summon a basic chicken. To each his own. And I still maintain that while it takes longer, the power of a mage is both more exciting and diverese than that of a fighter... who is really good only at one thing. And there is little flair needed to kill Grashlin. Just time :) Gered: I really like your ideas and suggestions, Gered. I think that Body sphere opposite the Mind sphere is very nifty. Multi-Sphere Spells May I be the first one to say that I don't like putting spells into more than one sphere? :) In my mind, it makes them less precious. One needs to cultivate the spheres to have access to the spells that they yeld. Since it seems that the spheres will be connected to the great forces of the universe (fire, water, time, space, mind, spirit, etc), each sphere would be almost like a power contained in itself. To tap into it, it needs to be studied... which in turn makes the opposite of it harder to reach. Very nice. But once the spells move into more than one category, you loose their designation and true nature. I would not spend any time studying the Heat sphere (or rather looking for someone good in it to help me learn spells), if I could access the same through much easier methods. Combining spells, however, is quite fun. And that's where the true power in magical experimentation lies. But... I'll leave this topic to those more knowledgable in it :) Just voiced my instincts. In any way, cool job. This is starting to slowly take shape :) Vespiel |
| 48: [May 27 1999] Re: Magic (Celetar) |
| Vespiel: A note about the multiple sphere spells... I could be mistaken, but from what you said in your last post it sounds like you're thinking that multi-sphere spell means a spell that can be learned *more* easily than other spells. The intention is the opposite - a mutli-sphere spell which is in say the cold and illusion spheres, would count as *both* cold and illusion. Therefore, use of the spell would interfere with use of both the heat (opp. cold) and divination (opp. illusion) sphere spells. The theory is, if we make multi-sphere spells for every sphere combo out there, it will let us make some more interesting and rarer spells, since only abouta quarter of mages would be able to easily use a 2-sphere spell. And a 3-sphere spell would halve the amount of users again, and so on. A 7 sphere spell (not that we plan to make any) would pretty much require a mage to tailor his choice of spheres to fit the one spell... which is a good reason to not have spells of more than say 3, 4 at the very max, spheres. Making mages alter their choices just for one spell defeats the purpose of allowing the choices in the first place. -- Celetar |
| 49: [Jun 01 1999] Spheres and Segliz mages (Honor) |
| This has probably been addressed, but will the way in which the segliz mage levels be changed to reflect a system that is limited to a few spells (comparatively) ? As I look at it now, most of the mages have most if not all spells and at high levels. Under the sphere system it would be very difficult if not impossible to displace those holding levels obtained through a different skill system. -=Honor thy Eldar=- |
| 50: [Jun 01 1999] re: Spheres and Segliz mages (Desla) |
| Honor, I'll make sure that things get done fairly when the time comes. For now, most of the skills are already a) not spells, like casting, channelling, scroll reading/writing, or b) stuff that will be in the "meta" sphere anyways. Desla |
| 51: [Jun 05 1999] fighters and magic (Aluin) |
| just wanted to throw my two cents worth in.... I was wondering how the sphere idea will work with those of us that are fighters as well. --- Aluin the curious |
| 52: [Jun 09 1999] Multi-Spheres (Vespiel) |
| Celetar: A very belated reply to you, but I have been away :) No, I did not mean that multi-sphere spells are those that will be easier to learn. I meant exactly what you described, that multi-sphere spells will fall under more than one sphere. That distressed me, as I felt a great uniqueness of the spells (a thing that is after all the founding principle of the new magic system) will be lost. The spheres seemed so powerful and contained in their own forces of nature, that mixing them together by principle (as opposed to in use) was weakening the system. However, I forgot the aspect you mentioned in the reply... the fact that after all, the more spheres a spell belongs to the harder it will be to use, most likely. This may present a very interesting addition to the system. I see what you are going for now. After all, if a mage wishes to use that 3-sphere level effectively, he or she has to have the spheres as the chosen ones at the moment. Interesting :) Vespiel |
| 53: [Jun 09 1999] Responses (Biblius) |
| Once again, a set of responses to all posts since my last one. Gered: The basic idea of the "life" or positive energy sphere as it relates to normal healing is that when casting a healing spell you are feeding "positive" energy into the wound, encouraging the body to do the actual healing, just at a hugely accelerated pace. Thus their inabillity to restore a destroyed limb. I'd like to avoid putting spells in multiple spheres as much as possible just to keep things simple for now. However, one or two very powerful spells may find there way into two spheres, and in the future, multi-sphere spells are a strong possibility. Euros: Yes, there are inherent difficulties in multi-sphere spells, which will probably result in all multiple sphere spells being fairly powerful to make up for that. Gered: Except that when you start talking about multiple sphere spells, we may soon be talking about group castings as well. In that case, you may have spells which incorporate opposing spheres, but require multiple mages to play different parts in the casting. Desla: Yep Serafin: Yes, past 4 spheres it would start to get very problamatical for mages to learn multi sphere spells. In essence the mage would have to design himself for that one big spell specifically... which wouldn't be a bad thing except that we don't want everyone to pick the same spheres so that they can use Big Spell X. And making a spell for every combination would get too labor intensive. So we'll probably wind up somewhere in the middle. Gered: Yes, and yes. I'm not so sure about the idea of a helpfile, even listing all the spells might be a bit too detrimental to keeping spells "special". Of course, there does need to be some method to determine what sphere(s) a spell uses before you learn it. Perhaps you could learn it by pouring over a spellbook of a particular spell. Euros: Actually, not necessarily. I would like to point out that just like "damage spells", "healing spells" probably won't be forced into just one (or two) spheres. Of course some spheres will probably be an awful lot better at it than others. (I know this wasn't what you were saying but I thought it was important to make the point). Yes, spells in opposing spheres couldn't be used by a single mage. Anarion: If all you have is a tiny bit of fighting skill, I doubt it will have any more of a penalty on your magic than it does now. Penalizing people for having tyro fighting skills isn't important. here. Vespiel: I wouldn't worry about the multi-sphere spells replacing the normal spheres, since the combination spells will wind up being much harder to cast overall. Celetar: Yep Honor: See Desla's answer Desla: (No response necessary) Aluin: We're still working on that aspect of it, Aluin. We may wind up allowing more "multi-classing" such that fighters would be able to access a limited amount of magic, but that's even more in the talking stages than the rest of this. Vespiel: Right |
| 54: [Jun 10 1999] Re: Responses. (Gered) |
| Hmm. I suppose this is one of those elements of the sphere system that'll be debated to death; the method of operation of each spell, and what sphere that makes it. I was viewing normal healing spells as bodily alteration (tying into my proposal for the body sphere instead of soul), as the healing process takes the current damaged state of the body and changes it to an uninjured state, without utilizing 'life energy' so to speak. This is because I was viewing life and death magic as spells that manipulate those forces directly; Life spells, of the healing ones, would be resurrection and reincarnation, both of which involve changes to the 'life state' of the target. Normal healing doesn't qualify by that definition, since the target's living or dead state doesn't make a difference to it's function. (And actually, by the method of healing spells simply speeding up natural healing, healing spells shouldn't work on a dead body...) As far as multi-sphere spells, I was thinking of a few of the more powerful ones. As an example, Pol's_Death_Curse. It fits very nicely into both summoning and death magic, and could be made into a multi-sphere spell of both. Certainly, given it's power, it's not unjustified. Gered |
| 55: [Jun 13 1999] Counterspells (Dart) |
| Early in this discussion, Patrick (I think) mentioned the possibility of counter spells. I simple way to go about doing this would be to have a different skill, counter-spellcasting, which could be used with any known spells. A counter-spell, once cast, would reduce chances of success of an actual cast. This would allow the strategy element of counter- spells without doubling the size of spell lists. How this would be set up to practice, and how it would relate to spheres, I don't know, but I thought it aught to come back into the discussion. Dart |
| 56: [Jun 14 1999] re: counterspells (Dismas) |
| You guys play too much M:TG. Me too. D:TCD |
| 57: [Jul 28 1999] magic (ooh, original title!) (Helmsbane) |
| please forgive me if this has been discussed or if it's a little obvious. i came up with a fairly good idea. why not make pre-reqs for certain spells? this will put some kind of definition on how much fighters will be able to learn, as well as a little bit of logic into the magic system. there was talk about major and minor spells of each sphere... placing the spells in a definite learning order is just taking this a step farther. for example... my sc is... fair, i think. the only fire_bolt spell i know is red. if i had a book (and _lots_ of time) i could learn gfb right now. that doesn't seem too realistic to me... you can't learn, say, calculus unless you have a fairly good hold on trig. anyway, it was just an idea that i think will help out the learning system. i don't know anything about coding, so i don't know how hard this would be to implement... -helmsbane the little mohnkee |
| 58: [Aug 13 1999] Amnesia (Harper) |
| This would be a very powerful spell. Permanently eliminate whatever skill is given as an arguement for the spells target. This would be good for those who pick up unwanted skills and are stuck with them. To prevent abuse, the spell could have a component that must be held by the _target_ so that none can have this cast on them against their will. --Harper |
| 59: [Aug 13 1999] Re: Amnesia (Valia) |
| Well, someone without notake on and either not paying attention, lagging, or otherwise unsuspecting (ie- never seen it before) is plenty vulnerable, as is anyone who had the item planted on them via pilfer skill. Also, I don't think there are any more useless spells than the stated purpose for this amnesia spell. How to remove unwanted skills: 1) Get killed without an amulet and sit for a long time, pc'd or not. 2) Find a vamp who wants to get better at the skill and has it at a lower level than yourself. 3) Since I last saw you practicing magic, I'd imagine the skills you want to lose are fighter ones. Simply hire a powerful fighter and a true newbie. Have the fighter train the newbie in combat, sans the skills you want to lose, until the newbie is good enough to become a vamp. Since you've established a close bond with your newbie during this time, you'll be able to trust them to sap only the skills you want to lose. Then have the powerful fighter kill the newbie in the name of halting the plague of vampirism throughout Ferdarchi. Any questions? __ __ \ / \ / \/ ALIA (player of) |
| 60: [Aug 13 1999] Perhaps (Harper) |
| Maybe it's not the best idea, but that certainly wasn't the best arguement. And the whole vamp thing is, you must admit, rather sadistic. (though perhaps not entirely bad, considering the game) |
| 61: [Aug 14 1999] Vampires (Spiffy) |
| Try the Vamp Idea... you will find Vamps do not select the skills they want to sap from you. |
| 62: [Aug 14 1999] Re: Vampires (Valia) |
| Hmmm. Becoming a vamp even more worthless than I thought then. __ __ \ / \ / \/ ALIA (player of) |
| 63: [Aug 15 1999] Re: Vamps (Spiffy) |
| Not True.. There are some good things you can get out of being a vamp.. There are some bad things as well.. but quite a few positive things (for yourself anyway, not for anyone else) |
| 64: [Aug 24 1999] Idea for the Lirrin's spells (Marahasa) |
| Have the glow be colored like pc to give an idea of how strong the spell was cast and how much longer the spell will last. Would be same as now for an area casting, unless someone can think of a way to show it in the room desc without the people who can't see in that room being able to see the glow color. Or maybe let it be that way, but would kind of lessen the value of mystic arrow. Mara |
| 65: [Aug 28 1999] Forget Spell (Vespiel) |
| Heya You know, I am thinking more and more that the 'Forget' spell would be a good idea. There are so many ways to pick up unwanted skills, and often they are trully unwanted. This spell could work like this: The 'receiver' would have to set a variable on himself to 'on', for example: "set openness to on". Then, the mage performs the spell. The spell also automatically resets the variable to 'off', to prevent accidental deletions in future. A payment for such service would be set between players, but I really think this spell would be useful. Vampirism is a complex procedure and it is still fairly random. For more security, the receiver could specify the skill to which he/she opens himself/herself for deletion. Then, a mage would simply cast the spell, and the receiver would have a concious control of what goes away. Vespiel |
| 66: [Aug 28 1999] Re: Amnesia (Marahasa) |
| But it's still a mess of code that will only be used when someone learns a skill by "accident". I can only think of a handful of ways offhand that you can pick up a skill without performing an action relevant to it. Languages and being taught magic while being channelled. Fighting skills could be taught to someone who was unexpectedly thrust into combat. I have yet to see someone that suffered from having a single improve in a language skill. And in most cases, the person who would be taught the class skills would be of the opposite class. If someone tried to teach one of my fighter characters how to use magic, they may very well get a blade for their efforts. Someone attacks a mage and tries to teach them fighting. Okay, either the mage will die in fairly short order, will gfb the fighter to death, or one of them will run quickly. A character deep into a single class is unlikely to pick up skills from the other class by that time. If you picked up fighting but were always a mage at heart and regret the decision, then there's always the option of attacking the pitfiends without any gear. Or you can RP the career change and deal with it. Another set option and otherwise pointless spell is not the answer. Who would bother to learn such a spell to a high enough skill to make sure there was no botch when casting? The demand for it is rather low and the casting of the spell is probably not worth many suns. Why spend all that time (and many more improves than the person who wishes to forget show quick skills most likely has to perfect the spell) learning the spell only to cast it once a month for a relative newbie for maybe 10 suns? Mara |
| 67: [Aug 28 1999] Amnesia (Vespiel) |
| But that's not the point. The truth is that you DO pick up unwanted skills. And not that rarely either. A mage who walks by an aggressive wolf or creature that attacks him/her, risks getting skills _every_ time such attack happens. Someone butchering meat just for food, may pick up the butchering skill... despite being ICly completely careless and not caring about learning to do it at all. Newbies are at the highest risk. Since they don't know the world yet, they often attempt things poorly. In the above example, I have known newbies who thought that to butcher an animal for meat, they have to skin it first. Boom, there goes a tanning improve. Swimming can be picked up by just crossing a river. It's a useful skill, yes, but one may not wish it. In the end, I don't think it's a big deal if you pick up some unwanted skills. It happens in life. I never cared to learn how to laundry, but the repeated and necessary doing of it taught me a lot :) That's fine. But what I am suggesting that perhaps, in a magical world, where one can shape more than flesh with spells, such a spell would have place. Again, Marahasa has a good point. Would people bother to learn it? Perhaps it could be like Lirrin's_Torch, a good and easy newbie spells for learning. Perhaps I am off to the right field :) Ideas? Vespiel |
| 68: [Aug 28 1999] Re again (Marahasa) |
| A person can't learn fighting without a teacher if they don't know it. This rules out your "attacked mage" scenario. Someone who doesn't want to learn the skill shouldn't do it, plain and simple. Don't want to learn butcher? Don't carve corpses. Don't want to learn swimming? Don't cross a river. And the newbie who learns tanning because they don't know they can carve first is not likely to survive long enough to be able to afford the spell. After a few more deaths, they should have a better idea of what skills they want. I also just replied to your post about RP and the economy. And I think I see a clash of opinions. You want people to give up learning all the skills to make finished product because it's not RP to be a lean, mean, sun-earning machine. Yet you want people to be able to give up skills so they can be "stripped down" to quickly learn fighting or magery. Such a one-sided person is not very RP. The only constant in both your opinions is that people should only learn one skill, master it, and never learn anything else. Even I'm not that boring IRL. Why would I want to pretend to be someone who is, even to help the economy, earn money, or get an AGAAWEL? Not much entertainment value in someone who's only skill is AGAAWEL common. Mara |
| 69: [Aug 28 1999] Re: Amnesia, forget, etc. (Celetar) |
| A point I'd like to make, is that people almost always overestimate the skill 'interference' effects. I've heard many requests from players to remove a skill that actually has only a fraction of a percent effect on the chance to learn the skills they're focusing on. Except for combat/magic and to a lesser extent, magic/thievery, no skill will significantly affect your chances of learning a skill. Even combat or thievery/magic crossovers will only have a negative impact on the main skill if the unwanted skills are known at a significant level, or lots of them are known. If someone learns 6 or more fighting skills up above average and then wants to become a mage with no penalties, I have little sympathy. Usually what happens is this: A newbie is having a bit of trouble learning some new skill. He asks an older player about it, and the older player asks what skills the newbie has learned. Newbie points out their tyro skill in hiding, and the older player shouts, 'Aha! That's why you'll never learn channelling!'. This is perhaps exaggerated, but I've experienced this kind of thing firsthand, incidentally when working on my character who had tons of high level magic skills, several expert+ thief skills, and fighting skills at NVG. -- Celetar |
| 70: [Aug 29 1999] re: learning diverse skills (Desla) |
| Celtar's right, it isn't that big a deal. In fact, I've long lobbied that skills should only positively reinforce each other, not positively reinforce similar skills and negatively reinforce dissimilar skills. But that opens up multiclassing to be too easy, either way, so we'd have to have a stronger cap/penalty for having too many skills, which would hurt mages more... At any rate, it's not as busted as you think, like Celetar said, and when we go through and revamp everything, the skill system will probably scale better (not that that's hard) to the high end and to multiclassers. Desla |
| 71: [Aug 30 1999] Amnesia, Change and All That Jazz (Vespiel) |
| Wow, wow, wow... easy Marahasa! Firstly, let's not make it personal. Please _re-read_ all I posted, and try to understand what I _actually_ said, as opposed to what you think I said :) A lot seems to have been misunderstood. To reply... I believe we are supposed to _help_ the newbies on this game, and not adopt an attitude "Well, if the newbie is stupid enough to do something (and despite the fact that he or she has never played on a game like this, he or she should KNOW better than to make a mistake) then the newbie will never be any good." Sorry, but if everyone followed that train of thought, we would not have any newbies here. Also, I never said I want anyone "stripped down" of skills, or that I want players to quickly learn fighting or magery (in fact, I very much enjoy the time it takes), or that I want to create one-sided roleplayers, or that I want people to learn one skill and be stuck with just that. Please don't misquote, but inquire further before you make assumptions :) Now, with that out of the way... I do not believe that learning all the skills and being a master at everything is the way things should go. Why do we have this obsession about being not only a smith but a miner and a metallurge at the same time? It is possible, yes, but show me one person like that IRL. You don't get a Leonardo DaVinci in every generation, you know :) There are still MANY skills and adventures one can involve himself/herself with, without having to know it ALL, and without being a one-person monopoly on life. Organizing things into levels does not mean that you will be stuck with one skill or one profession. If you believe so, then obviously you have not experienced DartMUD yet. Now, I know that this message will be followed with outcries of players that will say "But DartMUD is _not_ RL! Why does it have to be like RL!?". True. Many of you will have a point here, and that's why I put my thoughts up for _discussion_, so that they can be found place or lack of it in our game. But what I find ironic in such moments is the fact that our opinions on what DartMUD should be differ with times, goals, personal views, personal feelings, current events and our misfortunes, don't they? Half the time, when something is suggested, we scream how it is wrong, for it is not realistic, and DartMUD is, after all, about realism. The other time, we go against those words, claiming that realism has no place here, for it's only a game! :) Convenient, and very human :) Well, I am suggesting a higher degree of realism in what is already an excellent economy system. I am quite aware that what I propose may be completely off to the left field, but if such is the case, it will eventually get disproved or ruled against. Why are we so affraid of change? Why do we automatically assume it will make everything worse, especially since we really don't know the facts behind many of the rumors that we perpetrate? I like change on DartMUD. Great things have come from it. But resistance to most of it has has been fierce. Yet today, many of those strongly-opposed changes are hailed by the players as great achievements of the MUD. Go figure. Is it easier to be able to do it all? It takes longer to learn, but yes in effect one ends up needing no one else. One ends up being a one-person enterprise, a detached, self-sufficient unit. On DartMUD, people like that need no one else, and usually show little joy in every day activities, excitement and ideas. Is it realistic? Not according to our RL standards. Is realism what we want? Who knows... it seems to shift with the wind. So, perhaps, everything is already set and balanced. There is hardly an idea that meets with enthusiasm, so perhaps we are all set. And yet, these boards in the OOC nexus never seem to be quiet, do they? In any case, this is, after all, a magic board... so I better get to my point. The 'Amnesia' spell... yes, good points from the people who posted before me. Perhaps those 'unwanted' skills are not as much of a problem at all, and certainly less than they may seem. Maybe my reason was actually the aesthetics and clarity of the 'show skills' display... although that does seem to be a bit insignificant, doesn't it? :) It was only an idea, anyways. Thanks :) Vespiel |
| 72: [Sep 16 1999] Amnesia/Forget spell (Anarion) |
| I think there is a demand for the Amnesia/Forget spell. I know that I have several skills I wouldn't mind losing. I gained them when I was young and inexperienced. As Celetar points out, it is probably percieved to be more of a problem than it really is. And as for mages not wanting to spend the time to learn the spell... I think some mages would learn it just to learn it. I had thought of a spell like this a while ago, but I never thought of casting it on someone else. Casting a skill loss spell on another certainly opens the door for abuse. -Anarion the half-troll |
| 73: [Sep 16 1999] re 72 (Caterus) |
| I would have to agree you dont know what a healer/mage could be casting and it would suck if i look at my skills and seen I was not a fighter anymore Second you had a choice to learn spells I have a few skills I dont want and so does everyone BUT Oh well that is the Breaks you should have been more careful and you didnt have to read that spellbook now did ya??? well thats it **Caterus** |
| 74: [Sep 21 1999] Ripples (Harper) |
| Amazing how my idea, concieved for the very reason two creators have now said is minor, has causes such a discussion. The longer I play, the more I agree with the sentiment that unwanted skills can be dealt with. After all, I've gotten this far. Not to say the spell wouldn't have it's place, but does not seem worth to coding time, in context. --Harper |
| 75: [Sep 22 1999] The nature of the beast (Nimbus) |
| ' No one posted anything today so I thought I'd give it a go. I have a 'question that probably doesn't need answering - but it's no fun coming to 'read the boards if there's nothing new to read. ' My question is "what is the nature of casting?" Are all spells 'cast non-verbally? What are mages supposedly doing when others 'see them casting spells? If spells have verbal components and someone 'were able to whollop a mage and maybe break his jaw, would the mage 'no longer be able to cast verbal spells? Would they still cast but 'have an unexpected outcome? Does the casting process employ 'any waving about of appendages if a mage looses a hand or two, 'or possibly a tail or trunk, would the mage still be able to throw spells 'of this type? And lastly, if a mage were wounded mortally would the mage 'have difficulty concentrating when attempting to cast a spell? ' Have these and other questions been pondered over already? 'Magic may just be an amorphus non-corpreal manifestation that 'takes various shapes when called upon. If casting spells requires 'nothing more than a mind in tune with the magical beast, then do mages 'really need bodies? '-Nimbus 'Ps. Yes, this is a silly post. Have fun with it if you like. Maybe philosophy 'and muds don't mix. :P 'Please excuse the single quotes proceeding the text, it was necessary. |
| 76: [Sep 23 1999] Mages and Casting (Vespiel) |
| Whenever I see a mage cast a spell, I get a message 'So and so incants some mystic phrases'. So yes, it seems that the spells are verbalized. Also, speaking does seem to break a concentration of a mage when he or she casts or practices, so that would further support that theory :) Vespiel the Cat |
| 77: [Oct 04 1999] Raw meat (Drahaenya) |
| Either the use of pc should be extended to raw meat so it doesn't rot, or a new spell could be designed for that purpose. Also ress or reinc should be able to restore a pile of meat and tallow (if it's all there) to a corpse. Also flesh golem pets. the player of Drahaenya just had to post this |
| 78: [Oct 05 1999] Just wonderng... (Hrothgar) |
| I just wondering how the progress of the sphere magic system was coming along. Personally I thought it was a neat idea and would love to see it be incorporated into the game. -Hrothgar |
| 79: [Oct 05 1999] last (Drahaenya) |
| Agreed. Saw notes long ago about fighters only being able to have one sphere or something like that though. Disagree with that. I think Drah may be the only char I haven't tried to multiclass with. If someone's willing to be a 'glutton for punishment' they should be able to learn anything, given enough effort. player of Drahaenya |
| 80: [Jan 17 2000] Levatation or Flying type... (Mosiah) |
| I think it would be cool if there was some type of spell to levatate or fly so it would make it easier for us fragile mages to travel the hexes without as many conc blows, because it sux when you run into bears or frost wolves...ect and they attack and y anyway that was my two cents |
| 81: [Jan 17 2000] Re: Levitation and flight. (Bralvokia) |
| I believe a 'true' flight spell would be a significant challenge to code, not to mention the changes to the combat system that would need to take place. Currently, combining the travel, hiking, and buzz_animal_invisibility skills achieves the effect you seem to be looking for. player of Bralvokia |
| 82: [Jan 18 2000] How about.... (Mosiah) |
| Well if you didn't like my last idea how about a spell that you could cast on packs to make like a dimension rift in them, i saw a pocket's spell, but i haven't heard much about it and am just posting this idea, this "pack" spell could be cast on a pack -The insane player of mosiah. |
| 83: [Jan 19 2000] re: 82 (Selena) |
| That spell exists. Selena |
| 84: [Jan 22 2000] re (Mosiah) |
| Mosiah will start asking if a spell exists before he makes more idea posts..... |
| 85: [Jan 26 2000] an idea (Bishop) |
| not sure if this is one already but here goes how bout one that reduces or nullifies the damage of falling. something like feather_fall or the sort. *Bish |
| 86: [Jan 26 2000] Re: an idea (Bralvokia) |
| I think they call that spell acrobatics. player of Bralvokia |
| 87: [Jan 27 2000] Re: an idea (Katkt) |
| There are spells that functionally duplicate skills. Another one would not be that bad. I think they call that spell green_armor, though. Don't see a need for a falling specific version. Katkt |
| 88: [Jan 31 2000] re: falling damage (Desla) |
| Actually, Katkt, armor is not as effective in stopping damage as a "feather fall" type spell would be--I know, I coded the possibility into the falling damage server when I created it. :-) I actually have a ring of feather falling that I might be convinced to sell to someone... $200 USD sound fair? ;-) Desla |
| 89: [Jan 31 2000] ring of feather falling... (Jedra) |
| Tell ya what folks...I'll steal Deslas ring code and sell it to any one at half price...$100. |
| 90: [Jan 31 2000] What is the exchange... (Patrick) |
| rate of USD against Gold suns here by the way? :) -Patrick |
| 91: [Feb 01 2000] Re: Ring of Feather Falling (Ramik) |
| Done, Jedra. Where should I mail the check? ---Ramik, whose limbs pop like go**amn baloons when he falls. |
| 92: [Feb 03 2000] re: Jedra's undercut (Desla) |
| Hey, accept no substituted. I've been known to add permakill code to items that players aren't supposed to have... Pop goes the PC... and the poor sot who picks up his stuff... It's not nice to undercut the creator who coded something--they can do nasty things to it later. :-) Desla |
| 93: [Feb 26 2000] maybe this...? (Mosiah) |
| perhaps a spell that allows mages to morph into things would be cool, make it a difficult one, like a bluish-green cost, i think it'd be cool, but anywho that's just a though on a spell |
| 94: [Dec 28 2000] Spell idea (Iris) |
| I think a useful spell would be a ignite spell to light up stuff like fireworks! |
| 95: [Dec 31 2000] Re:94 (Devlah) |
| As I understand it...Such a spell already exists, but remains unreleased for some reason. Probably too powerfull or dangerous or something...Who knows what untold havoc would be released if mages didn't need a tinderbox anymore! |
| 96: [Jan 05 2001] Mark (Devlah) |
| If you have multiple objetcs of the same type marked for different locations, can you take an object by specifying the marked location? For example: get (healers hall) armet from pack ---Devlah |
| 97: [Mar 25 2001] BD (Devlah) |
| Has anyone else noticed that BD only seems to work on PCs now, and not NPCs? |
| 98: [Apr 22 2001] Aura fluctuations. (Shult) |
| Just had a random thought while enjoying the shifting colors of a flickering aura. Certain IC events, like phases of the moon (most likely the second, since it's used for Thorpian time) or the permadeath of a high-ranked mage, could cause temporary bonuses or penalties to peoples' power stats. Expanding on that idea, maybe certain seasons would be more (or less) favorable for casting certain alignments of spells. Autumn and spring respectively correspond nicely with destruction and renewal, for instance. Not sure what kind of coding would be needed for that, but it would throw off some of the hard numbers mages have now, among other benefits. |
| 99: [Nov 07 2001] Research (Mosiah) |
| Any chance of it getting reopened? |
| 100: [Nov 07 2001] RE: Research (Ogma) |
| No. - Ogma |
| 101: [Dec 03 2001] Cantrips (Mosiah) |
| Any chance a bunch more useless except for our own amusement cantrips could be released? |
| 102: [Dec 13 2001] re: cantrips (Nobusoku) |
| i'm all for it but the creators don't seem to like the idea of new spells being released. i even have a few ideas for *really* useless spells! leave it to me, eh? -nobu |
| 103: [Mar 23 2002] magick (Yog) |
| was just thinking about how once people got their spells the mages were pretty much all the same, if alignment could be more of a serious factor perhaps mages would be naturally specialized in one area or another to be most effective like fire mages and healers which seem to be opposites but since both groups can actually heal and cast firebolts the disctiction to me seems pretty much just in philosophy not in ability but then again, no, i havent played enough to have a real informed thought on the matter, thats why im posting it here. :) i guess the real thing i'm getting at here is creating more diversity in the ranks of magic. |
| 104: [Mar 27 2002] re: magick (Lohrshyne) |
| I agree with Yog that there should be more distinctions and diversities in the game. However, we must recognize that fighters are well.. rather boring as well. But if all else fails, there is always multiclassing! Just don't expect to be getting anywhere fast anytime soon... well depends what the skill combo is *shrug* okay I'm rambling. |
| 105: [Mar 31 2002] re: alignment (Mosiah) |
| Shifting into the edges of spell alignment is easy, try getting to wholehearted or strong renewal, or zealot/fanatical war and then tell me how easy it is to shift alignment :) -M. |
| 106: [Apr 07 2002] Spells (Mosiah) |
| Was wondering if more spells could be released, and I'm not talking one time releases so the spell mongers can hold on to them because they are rare. And with quest spells would be nicer to have some harder quests that had different treasure pool. -M. |
| 107: [Apr 24 2002] Research (Thuvos) |
| While i understand that researching new spells is out, would it be possible to consider research of existing but lost or hard to find spells? Say, requiring high skills in language#magic, spell casting, and several related spells (similar effects, similar aura level, and similar alignment), possibly some expensive but craftable materials? So to research lirrin's_sun, you'd need at least one other of lirrin's spells at a high skill, another spell of the same aura level at high skill, and perhaps a few books of slightly related spells written to a very good level. Why am I suggesting this? Because it seems that there are a number of spells out there that nobody knows, but are already coded. Unless a spell was removed for bugs or game balance, I don't see why it should be totally unavailable. An ogre's lack of 2 cents |
| 108: [Apr 26 2002] Research (Daring) |
| Thuvos, you might do well to look around... There are many people with these "rarer" spells such as Lirrin's sun. Further, with a bit of role playing and haggling, you can get these spells (though you may end up in indentured servitude) |
| 109: [Apr 27 2002] Research (Aleia) |
| Daring, sure that a few people may hold all the magic knowledge of Ferdarchi but what if they disappear? How would you re-introduce lost spells? Anyway.. even if research is possible, we should already know the name of the spell we search, and also the way to find it... it looks like another dead end. I think magic would gain more interest if it allows a more personnal touch... Magic as it is, is nothing else than learning&casting ready-made spells (as far as I know)... But Do We want something new? The ones who possess the knowledge may disagree. I don't know Dartmud enough to propose improvements, but I think that another aspect than spells would be really good for magic... so it would not be a dead end... and more funny to work with... Just think at enhancements of channeling maybe (?) |
| 110: [Apr 27 2002] Greed (Mosiah) |
| Well, spell hoarding kinda sucks for most of us mages and the shut down of research sucks even more because the most of the spells that are hoarded are going to be kept on that bleek hope that some spell is going to be released and usually the ones that are released are kinda crappy, well released since i've been here...The spell pool is very limited yes, and I we don't have the creator base to have research anymore. So I just felt like babling.... And aleia there is an echantment that requires channelling but most of us will never possess it. -M. |
| 111: [Apr 27 2002] Re: Research (Raven) |
Aren't you some of the same people who were commenting on my web board that the economy is not-so-functional because everything that people desire is too easily obtained? The same principle applies to spells. If they were just handed out to any random newbie, they wouldn't be worth anything. Furthermore: This mud had had the same basic magic and combat systems since many of our players were in diapers, literally, and we are not about to just up and recode them on a whim. If you don't like our combat and magic systems as they are, you would probably be much better off to find some other mud. Yes, we would like to do a total rewrite of combat, but don't hold your breath. And if we ever do do it, you probably won't like it anyway. It's not that we don't appreciate the suggestions... it's just that a lot of them are like telling the President that it would be much cooler if the capital of the US were in Chicago and the military all wore purple uniforms. There, I've said it and I'm glad. R. |
| 112: [Apr 27 2002] re : research (Aleia) |
| I think you got it wrong raven (From MY talking of course) I don't speak about re-coding the magic system.. spell system is not to be erased... but is is a pyramid system... and certainly close to the real world... Since I began playing I realize that many many things in the real world need a teacher to be learned... What I think is a shame is that RAW magic doesn't really exist (channeling is a kind of raw magic... I don't know if a good mage can knock down a frost wolf just in channeling but it should be the case I think) and that magic is only used through spells.. It is just an idea... if you want one day to improve the magic and add a system to it which is different to the spell system the magic of DM would be richer and there would be Several types of mages... Of course You may have already thinked at that (it is just a different idea than the one to increase the number of spells.. just create different magicS).. you maight also have rejected the idea because it doasn't fit or because It would be real hard work.. But I just wanted to say it in the case you only thinked at increasing spells only to enrich the DM magic. Anyway, DM is an absolute killer game and I can just say that so far creators have been on the right way, while most of other games just keep on catch-22 exp/slash/p2p :) If I can say a last thing (even if I doesn't know the game very well) : Humm... I wanted to say that even weak people in the real world can be really dangerous... I haven't seen a dangerous weak person in the game... but.. well.. forget this... I think I don't know what I talk about right now... *grin* bye <c |
| 113: [Apr 27 2002] my two farthings (Yama) |
| As a very, very new mage. I certainly see no problem with the current spell distribution. Yes there are spells I will never have, but the beauty of the game is that mages have to be willing to quest and explore and hope to find some of the new ones to get "in the game." Reincarnation is a great example, it is pretty tighly controlled, and it makes an interesting dynamic. My hope is to be a good enough mage to be able to explore and find something worthwhile someday. Many spells are available to people on a PC interaction basis, and what would there be to look forward to if you knew you could get everything easily. Yama, the new mage |
| 114: [Apr 29 2002] hoarding spells (Illa) |
| Though I have never been an expert in this area it was my impression that pretty much all spells are obtainable in game via assorted quests. Even if that weren't the case, which it could be, if someone has a problem with someone else hoarding spells, use IC tactics, learn the spells and start your own guild. Whatever. Maybe just just take a simple route and just find another mud where in just 24 hours of playing time you can have level 40 character and everything can be done without interacting with players. In most mythos of Mages, the older Mages are powerful secretive beings that SLOWLY teach the younger apprentices the tricks of the trade. Don't expect a 6 month old character to have ress (which really isn't that hoarded), much less lirrins sun. |
| 115: [May 27 2002] Blur (Mosiah) |
| It's usefulness is close to df, chill, and warm. |
| 116: [May 28 2002] stats (Aleia) |
| I died a few times *grin* My power was aa then it rolled to "You manipulate energy fairly well." is it better or not??? thanks |
| 117: [Jun 02 2002] Detect Owner (Rohan) |
| I realize spell research is suspended still, but seeing as how this spell seems so simple and fairly useful I wanted to post anyway. (Though I'll probably get Ogma-whacked) Just be nice to have a simply spell to cast on pets to find out who their owner is if they are lost somewhere. Course something similar would be a leash and nametag I guess, But since that doesnt exist either just something would be nice. |
| 118: [Jun 03 2002] reply 117 (Perrin) |
| I'm not a mage, but I like the thought of a nametag that says who the owner is and maybe what guild if any they belong too. Possibly obtained when you buy the pet. Perrin |
| 119: [Jun 07 2002] Nametags (Mosiah) |
| If you wanna have nametags on your pets they should be optional |
| 120: [Jun 27 2002] Mage War (Kult) |
| Greetings, I'm Kult the orcish mage for those who don't know me. I heard about everyone can get spells and they are common and everything. Why not have a huge mage war where all books get burned and mages start attacking each other killing each other off, only a few mages survive and those who do survive are the ones who were in hiding and even a few of them survived. That way spells will be limited to a few people and learning spells will again be difficult to obtain. Also have another way of teaching spells instead of having spell books, when you have a spellbook, what are you going to do with it once its to simple for you to use, me personally put it on the shelf at the mages guild so anyone can learn it. Have it so that the mage and teach it directly to his student so that way no spell books are needed and it is difficult for spells to be spread. I'm not saying get rid of spellbooks all together but another way of teaching. Maybe there should be a code where mages can take on new apprentices and limit them to one or two apprentices and the teacher can only teach thier students, and when the students grow up to become great mages, they too can take on apprentices. I think that would be better than limiting mages abilities or whatever. I'm pretty tired so I'm not sure if above is making sense but have a argue about it and see if I was wasting my time suggesting it or not. I'm pretty tired so I'm not sure if above is making sense but have a argue about it and see if I was wasting my time suggesting it or not. h Ignore the last couple of lines, help didn't work, or it could be me playing dartmud for nearly 12 hrs Kult, the orcish war mage. PS I want to meet everyone, as long as your not mean to me :p |
| 121: [Jun 27 2002] re: Mage War (Thuvos) |
| While personally I despise most wars, your ideas on alternatives to spellbooks I do like. I don't see why every culture would pass down spells the same way. And some spells should probably have learning requirements of a roleplay nature as well as the game mechnics of aura & scroll reading skills. Perhaps some spells can't be written down, just gained via a quest the seeking mage performs themself. A dwarf might bury himself alive with nothing but a single jug of drink for a few days, seeking communion with an earth spirit to learn the secrets of a rune. Orcs might need to feed a pet a certain selection of items in a ritual fashion, then slaughter it and eat its' stomach to gain the spiritual essence of the spell grown within it. Braman might have a shared racial memory, and their mages quest in the depthes of history for their spells. Some of the healing spells might call for the caster to suffer a certain kind of wound in the learning process. A summoning might need the mage to face the creature he wishes to summon in personal battle after long book research into the animal, then he can summon the shade of the one he defeated with his spell. Fire spells might need the mage to kindle a special flame, each one harder to gather than components/fuels for than the last. Or he might need to keep his magical fire burning at all times, so his spell summons the fire for his attack from the eternal flame rather than forming it from raw magical force. Thuvos... the roleplayer with a horrendusly large rpg book collection |
| 122: [Jun 27 2002] RE: Mage Wars (Ogma) |
| It is generally considerd bad form to start complaining and making 'helpful' suggestions about things which have been developed over years when you have all of a week's exposure to the world of Ferdarchi. It is up to the mages to control the availibility of spells. When you are finished with a book, if you feel that spells are 'too easy to get', why don't you just trash it instead of leaving it for a newbie? There are many spells that only a handful of people in the world have, despite the way some people like to complain. Perhaps you need to listen and learn more. As for other ways of getting spells, yes Thuvos, these are all very colorful and that, but they are more suited for a pen and paper RPG, or for spell research (which is NOT happening, so forget about it.) |
| 123: [Jun 28 2002] Re: Mage Wars (Rohan) |
| Far be it from me to agree with Ogma, as I love a good whacking, but.....spells too easy??? Sure lirrin's_glow and dog_fart are common place, as well as some pitiful healing spells, but I know mages that are still begging to find any bolt above red. Look at Larry's. While there are (at least count) like 17 books for sale, none of them are any good spells. Most mages do as Ogma suggests, when they are done with the book to keep them from being learned by other mages they disintegrate them. Most common complaint I've heard (here comes the Ogma whacking) is that the spells received even from fairly difficult quests are still these pitiful spells. After staring down 7 orcs and nearly having your last falcon vanish it's disheartening to receive... another mho book! However, I see the realism in it and therefore don't really complain. Normally. But hey I just woke up so what the heck. |
| 124: [Jun 29 2002] Mage wars (Mosiah) |
| Hrm...duel arcane would be much better than a mage war.... * You think your enlightenment skill has improved. * |
| 125: [Jun 29 2002] Mage Wars (Kult) |
| Ok now that I had a couple of days rest from playing because of Ogmas post, I think its time to make my post a little clearer. First, I wasn't complaining, I was reading the previous posts and most of them said that magic is too far spread so I was making a suggestion. Secondly, I'm sorry for making suggestions, if I knew I had to be playing for a certain amount of time before making a suggestion, then I would've wait a few more months or so before making a suggestion. Thirdly, I never said spells were to easy to get, I meant when you study the book, after a certain amount of studying, is says something along the lines, your wasting your time studying this book, or something. I know I'm still trying to get a gfb spell. Fourthly, I'm finished, I can't remember what I was |