Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/virilneu/public_html/blog/wp-includes/cache.php on line 36

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/virilneu/public_html/blog/wp-includes/query.php on line 21

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/virilneu/public_html/blog/wp-includes/theme.php on line 540
Virilneus’ GS4 Idea Book » Spells

Virilneus’ GS4 Idea Book

March 27, 2011

405 Proposal

Filed under: Spells — Virilneus @ 5:37 am

E-Lore Review is MIA. And I don’t remember 405 even being in the preview, but I feel strongly it needs work. It takes skill into account almost not at all, and in general just works pass fail. But rest assured, I’ve worked it all out:

When cast on yourself/others/monsters

Works as currently done, add lines to identify any current elemental resistances. It is “elemental detection” afterall, in lots of other games similar spells do this. “Critter is weak to fire.”

When cast on items

Currently this is just pass/fail if you know the spell, you can identify it, this should change. Like when cast on yourself when young and unskilled you can only identify known spells, but as you get more skilled you can start to identify other spells, and get durations too.

1 1d100 roll, used twice.

1. Spell detection: Take your mana control skill in the applicable sphere, plus your die roll, and divide by 10. If the level of the spell is less than or equal to the result, you are shown which spell is in the item. If you’re trying to detect a hybrid sphere (like empath) take the two mana controls and average them first. This would encourage off native mana control training for some people.

2. Spell charges: Take your MIU skill, plus your die roll, and divide by 10.  If the number of charges left is equal to or less than the result, show the exact number of charges remaining. Otherwise, show “Too many for you to discern.”  So the “too many” threshold would be different for each player, and each cast with the roll component. A maximally trained player would be able to detect up to 30 charges if they rolled a 100, 20 if they rolled a 2. A typically trained just-capped pure (1x) would be able to see a max of 20 charges if they rolled 100, 10 if they rolled a 2.

Use the same roll for both halves, should be more efficient that way, but because of training difference it would be possible, on say a minor mental spell, for a player to detect the charges well, but still not get the spell name.

Possible Forseen Resistance to Change

Bards: You’re stealing our turf, no one will love us anymore.
Response: This would not detect rechargability, so you will still be needed for that. Also, with the introduction of the enhancive treasure system, your work load ballooned exponentially. People need you more than ever to check their enhancives. Don’t worry, you still have a purpose.

March 1, 2010

750 Deadpool

Filed under: Sorcery, Spells — Virilneus @ 2:16 pm

I recall seeing someone post that they wish sorcerers had an easier way of getting mana because sacrifice is so marginal.

I personally think sacrifice could merely be tweaked. And we had a really productive brainstorm about it maybe like 18 months ago, or 2 years ago, before Evarin quit anyways. But of course, no GM participated or acknowledged us and so, I think those ideas are probably gone now.

So… here is the spell.

A reverse mana node. Instead of increasing mana return for everyone in it, it DRAINS mana from everyone in it. Except the caster or those grouped to him.

The drained mana, of course, going to the sorcerer. How much is drained and recovered being then based on mana control skills.

Additionally, the deadpool corrupts the essence of the entire area partially, making any non 700 circle spells not cast by the caster group have a chance of failing as if the caster had 703 cast on them. Base the chance on lore or mana controls or something. I could give it a pretty significant chance though.

If you’ve read the ever-so-ponderous Wheel of Time Books… (and it has been a few years for me) like that one dirty place where the source is corrupted.

Additionally, I could see any 700 spell cast (including by critters) To have a CS boost, while in the deadpool.

Finally, the pool would break any sanctuary when cast, and prevent new ones from going up while active.

Call the spell, magical poison.
Addendum - the downside of deadpool is that you’re spending 50 mana to make a spot you cannot move from, modern hunting techniques typically involve almost no such camping, so that is the downside. Though, it would be interesting if we could cast the deadpool, and then walk away from it while still be “Beamed” the mana it drains (maybe less, at distance, and of course the CS boost etc would no longer apply). Like how we can 701 something and walk away and still get blood. Such a feature is worth discussing. I could also see it limited per day like how 1150 and 350 are. Definitely though, each sorcerer should only be allowed one active deadpool at a time. And yes, casting it in town would generally be a bad thing - though having the constable arrest you for such would seem like bad comedy. Does he really understand high level magic like that? It’d be far more better (yes, more better) if you got tossed in a guild jail by someone from the guild for doing that sort of thing.

Addendum 2 - a nice ability for a new major demon could be a walking deadpool, whereas they permanently have one that of course follows them wherever they go.

July 20, 2009

Demon Lore Bonuses

Filed under: Sorcery, Spells — Virilneus @ 10:51 am

Sorcerers have the most expensive training costs of any pure, especially in the lore category.

Wizards get bonuses to casting some spells when their familiars are present, why not allow sorcerers to do the same with demons?

Let having a demon summoned provide a enhancive +20 demon lore ranks (plus or minus X depending on demon type, but let 20 lore be the baseline) like some Assume Aspect functions. As if the demon were giving us pointers on keeping our cloaks in line, or summoning a presence for torment, perhaps holding our hands as we shift between planes. It makes perfect sense.

 Since you cannot summon a demon without another demon being present, you couldn’t use this to boost your own demon summoning directly. Also, by adding enhancive lore ranks you’re making implementation easier by just making the spell produce an enhancive effect, rather than coding in new hooks in all demonology using skills or spells.

 I would also consider grouping bonuses. You gain have the ranks of the bonus of any sorcerer you are grouped with. This would encourage player interaction, and help when people are teaching others how to use demons. If a young sorcerer is having trouble summoning, joining with an older sorcerer with an existing demon (who would be, conceptally, providing pointers or assistance to the sorcerer) would help them summon.

 You could also add new uncommon runes that require ungodly amounts of summoning to use, such as say 300 or 400 ranks. The only way then to complete that summoning would be to have many sorcerers join together with helper demons.  Another neat group RP application.

Chain Reaction DC

Filed under: Sorcery, Spells — Virilneus @ 10:29 am

If 409 and 415 are going to get multi target additions added, these being minor circle spells. I think time is right to revisit chain reaction DC as an improvement to our supposedly superior professional circle.

The concept behind DC is that it is a a chain reaction within the target’s body that makes their mana explode, with any extra mana shooting out to the sorcerer as a refund.

The concept behind chain reaction DC is that instead of the extra mana going to the sorcerer, it goes to another critter in the room, runs through DC again, and if there is still mana remaining, a third, a fourth, etc.

DC, being a mana manipulation spell, doesn’t lend itself to sorcery lores, instead, like _mana_ disruption, it lends itself to mana controls.

I favor mathematical systems as opposed to arbitarily set boundaries, I would not want to see a seed chart for mana control bonuses defining X number of critters to be hit. Rather I’d like the spell to work as close to the concept as possible where the chance for extra targets is directly related to the mana returned from the cast, which is itself directly related to the mana the critter has. So the more mana a critter has the more susceptible it is to this effect. Furthermore, the more mana the second critter has, the greater chance a third will be hit. So for instance if you DC an ithzir seer and it jumps to an ithzir adept there is a chance it’ll jump to a third target (perhaps back to the seer if it still lives). But if you DC an ithzir seer and it jumps to an ithzir janissary, well, it’ll probably stop there.

What I would so propose then is have mana control act as a modifier the efficiency of the spell in converting critter mana.

The formula would be simple. Total_ranks_mana_control_caster/targets_level = modifier. Assuming you are hunting like level that means a sorcerer with 2x in mana control would have a 200% modifier on critter mana efficiency. A sorcerer 4x in mana control would have a 400% modifier, and a sorcerer 6x in mana control would have a 600% modifier.

A typical pre-cap training is 1x in mana control, or no modifier. Some may do 2x if they’re really dedicated runestaff users and sacrifice training in other areas. Post cap most eventually get up to 2x, 3x or 4x possible near 15 million experience. 6x would only be possible if the sorcerer also got 200 ranks in MMC, which would be highly unlikely to happen unless they were around 30 million experience or higher (and I don’t think any sorcerer is even close to that).

A sorcerer can also trigger this affect by infusing more mana into their initial cast of DC, to make up for any shortage in their mana control training or in the mana refund of the initial target.

Critter base mana returns may need to be tweaked for balance issues.

If we pick a number like say, 12 mana, to spawn a subsequent DC, and the critter returns 6 normally, you’d need to be 2x in mana controls to do it without extra mana, or you’d need to infuse 6 with the initial cast.

If the critter returns 4 mana normally you’d need 3x in mana controls or infuse 8 with the initial cast, or a combination thereof.

Finally, the sorcerer may decide to go all out and infuse very large amounts of mana, 100 mana perhaps, to try to get his DC to be strong enough to destroy the whole room.

This idea is balanced and appropriate to the profession. Other pures indeed have multi-target spells near the 19th slot, one even with unlimited targets at no extra cost.

 The use of elemental lores for boosting damage otherwise could stay with the spell.

June 18, 2009

719 Lore Benefit Research

Filed under: Sorcery, Spells — Virilneus @ 3:13 pm

I collected data from myself to get a decent sample size. All casts are on an Ithzir Seer, if you want to view the raw data, which includes critical data (if someone wants to analyze criticals, or compare damage only when the critical is the same, have it) go here.

Otherwise, here is the result, click for a larger picture. Sample size of 900 some casts, 380 with 0 lore ranks, the rest with 10 lore ranks.

The below graph was done by Denil with my data after he plugged in the crit ranks.

I also did the following data analysis.

Avg(Endroll)::Critrank at 0 Lore

149.1667 1
167.0000 2
152.9200 3
149.1282 4
154.6522 5
170.5882 6
171.0339 7
172.0000 8
193.9450 9

Avg(Endroll)::Critrank at 10 Lore

121.5000 1
126.0000 2
146.1176 3
152.6765 4
157.7544 5
163.0933 6
168.9870 7
172.8169 8
187.1186 9

December 7, 2008

720 Update

Filed under: Sorcery, Spells — Virilneus @ 8:27 am

Simple change, when FI is cast on a critter have there be a chance the items in their hands are torn free and sucked into the void. Give it the same restrictions as 1002’s blowing up feature. That is all.

May 29, 2008

112 - Spirit of Adventure

Filed under: Spells — Virilneus @ 8:28 am

Water Walking is a problematic spell, it works differently, or not at all, depending on the pool you’re swimming in, and yes… swimming, not walking, swimming. It doesn’t make sense. Begone with it!

 Instead, call it “Spirit of Adventure” and have it give a flat bonus of 5 phantom ranks to each Swimming, Climbing, and Survival. Much better.

December 31, 2007

Maximum Possible Enchant, Forging, and Metals

Filed under: Game Balance, Skills, Spells — Virilneus @ 6:25 pm

There is a problem with enchant and how it relates to forging, namely, thanks to the change with enchant to allow wizard enchanted weapons to be blessable, it is now cheaper and easier to forge perfect steel weapons and enchant them to 4x than to forge a perfect vultite weapon.

 It makes no sense that more common metals should be more desirable, but they are, and that is a problem.

 Some would say this is a forging problem and should have a solution found within that system. I think however that since an enchant change caused this issue, maybe another enchant change could fix this. Futhermore, the idea I have come up with I feel helps the enchant system in many other ways as well.

 The concept is the same that is found in almost all other magical item manipulation based spells or abilities in the game, namely that materials have a quality and that that quality determines how much magic they can hold. You find this with scrolls, and all imbeddables. You find this system in place in the Scroll Infusion, Imbue, and Recharge Item spells. However, this is not the case with metals for the enchant system. All metals, no matter of base quality, can be enchanted to the same 10x limit by players (with the right, rare, potions of course).

 Why is it, that this system alone, the system that perhaps generates the most benefit, places so little importance on the base material quality? It goes against the grain of all other magical systems, and it should be changed.

I propose that all metals should be given a maximum possible enchant, not unlike their current minimum enchant (aka starting enchant aka natural bonus). This enchant being the maximum possible level a player would be able to enchant the item to.

The easiest formula I can think of for this would be a +20 or 2x(base enchant) whichever is higher. So Golvern & Veil Iron would have a max of +50. Vultite, Rolaren, etc would have a max of +40. Glaes, Mithglin, etc would have a max of + 30. Imflass +24, Mithril, Steel, Ora, and anything else +10 or lower would have a max of +20.

Or, it could be a set amount + the initial enchant. Say metals under +20 base enchant would have a max enchant of +20 over their base. So imflass at +32, mithril at +25, Ora at +30, steel still at +20. Then metals above 4x would have +25 added to their base (so that a theoretical 10x is still possible).

The third option would be for GMs to just go through and assign maximum enchant values for each metal and wood type, so they would be able to make unique considerations for each.

 Some may see this is a nerf to enchant, it is not. This doesn’t change the power of enchant, the demand of enchant, or the value of enchant. All this does, really, is change which metals a customer is likely to hire a wizard to enchant with.

Some may see this as “unfair” because they have a say mithril themed outfit and now they won’t be able to use mithril without taking a loss on the enchant value. Firstly, this system would of course grandfather in all existing gear, secondly, you can always use your “rp metal” as the hilt, as embellishments, as spikes, cross guards, trim, edging, and all the other nifty ways you can add secondary materials to your item’s description. It just will not be the base metal.

In addition to fixing the little forging problem I think this would also help enchant in that it would create an additional restriction on high level (8x+) enchants. The creation of a new restriction, metal types, should logically lead to a lessening of the existing restriction, potion availability. In other words, I feel that this change would result in more high level enchanting potions being released.

Finally, this would also help the game and enchant by likely lessening restrictions on other metal types or enchant methods. GMs may not want players to be able to enchant razern to 7x or 10x, but if razern had a maximum possible enchant of +25 maybe GMs would allow it to be enchanted, in spite of the natural crit weighting it has. The same goes for Rhimar, Drakar, Coraesine, Zorchar, Gornar, and all the other special property metals. All these metals that are currently not enchantable might be made enchantable so long as they have a maximum enchant built in.

 If you do not want to simply outright put a hard limit on enchanting certain metals beyond a theoretical maximum amount, then a compromise could be those metals simply gaining exponential increases in failure rates beyond a certain point, so that they are still possible, if very risky, to enchant further.

 Irregardless, metal (and wood I guess) quality should play a larger role in enchant, and perhaps other magical systems. It adds more depth to the game, and supports the official documentation on material rarity and desirability.

December 3, 2007

Empathic Dispel and Hybrids

Filed under: Game Balance, Spells — Virilneus @ 3:49 pm

It was said that when Empaths were given the MnM spell circle Empathic Dispel would be evaluated in regards to what spells it can affect.

With Warden’s statement that Empaths are now to be considered full mental/spiritual hybrids despite not having the MnM circle, this would seem to be the right time to do this review.

Empathic Dispel is a Mental/Spiritual spell that affects the following spheres:

  • Mental/Spiritual
  • Mental
  • Spiritual
  • Spiritual/Elemental

Which sphere is missing? Mental/Elemental of course, AKA Bard spells.

Bards are mental/elemental hybrid semis, empaths are mental/spiritual hybrid pures, sorcerers are elemental/spiritual hybrid pures. Why is it that Empathic Dispel affects the 700 circle but not the 1000 circle?

Personally, I do not think it should affect either, it is already powerful enough and a half on half match shouldn’t be enough to justify it not working. So I would ask that 700 circle spells be made immune to 1140. If not, then for consistency sake the 1000 circle needs to also be affected by 1140, anything else reeks of bias.

135: Cone of Web

Filed under: Spells — Virilneus @ 2:59 pm

I would like to see some more web, and I think the 100 circle could use a mass attack spell to balance 410/435 in the 400 circle, so, cone of web was an easy idea to think up.

I would structure this basically like Cone of Lightning, but being about twice the mana it wouldn’t be exactly the same. It would function like CoL in that it would individually target all critters in the room for a web bolt (based on stance, so if in a forward stance, bolt, if not, weaker area wave — just like with 118). However, if you can visualize all of those webs leaving the caster, quite a bit of webbing would drop on the ground, and so because it both makes sense and would justify the higher mana cost, I would also have the spell create an area web in the room in addition to the individual targeting of all the critters.

As for training requirements, I would support a requirement of MOC training very similar to how ball spell splashing works where MOC training is used to establish the minimum targets and lore training is used to establish the maximum targets.

Powered by WordPress