Previous
>>That said, I think it's a problem of development, and it's being actively worked on right now. The game has a nice symmetry: two guilds of each mana type, two NMU guilds, and Necros.
>>I'd hate the game to become Magerealms (guest starring Barbarians) even more.
It's a problem of development in the sense that Thieves and Barbarians require separate development work because they work on separate frameworks from the rest of the guilds.
Another thing that, ideally, could be addressed.
FUTILITY
2DUMBARSE
Re: NMU's and arcane mana
06/15/2018 10:50 AM CDT
> It's a problem of development in the sense that Thieves and Barbarians require separate development work because they work on separate frameworks from the rest of the guilds.
To me, this is the most convincing argument, and I think instant-on vs prep-cast is a false dichotomy. I don't see why one couldn't create an instant-on spell type that bypasses prep-cast kind of like prep-target can be bypassed via "target." Then, slap NMU text on it and call it a barb dance, thief khri, etc. I get that it's a lot of dev work and unlikely to become a priority even if The Powers That Be agree, but that doesn't mean it can't be a goal or won't make the game better. If that's in fact not an option, like I stated before, I'd caution against wishing for prep-cast over instant-on abilities.
This is a bigger issue IMO than TDPs or being locked out of sorcery, scrolls or runes, although I can sympathize with an emotional thief rune use argument given history. Inter-guild TDP concerns are never going away and will always be emotionally charged (and I don't think barbs are in the worst position there in any case although that's for another time and thread). What's more, I can't think of a good reason why it would be awful, especially for MUs, of which I am one primarily, to open up some magic features to the NMUs. I mean, hell, even if they got TM, who's really threatened by ranger or paladin TM? If anyone is, I must be playing a different game.
To me, this is the most convincing argument, and I think instant-on vs prep-cast is a false dichotomy. I don't see why one couldn't create an instant-on spell type that bypasses prep-cast kind of like prep-target can be bypassed via "target." Then, slap NMU text on it and call it a barb dance, thief khri, etc. I get that it's a lot of dev work and unlikely to become a priority even if The Powers That Be agree, but that doesn't mean it can't be a goal or won't make the game better. If that's in fact not an option, like I stated before, I'd caution against wishing for prep-cast over instant-on abilities.
This is a bigger issue IMO than TDPs or being locked out of sorcery, scrolls or runes, although I can sympathize with an emotional thief rune use argument given history. Inter-guild TDP concerns are never going away and will always be emotionally charged (and I don't think barbs are in the worst position there in any case although that's for another time and thread). What's more, I can't think of a good reason why it would be awful, especially for MUs, of which I am one primarily, to open up some magic features to the NMUs. I mean, hell, even if they got TM, who's really threatened by ranger or paladin TM? If anyone is, I must be playing a different game.
JULIAN
Re: NMU's and arcane mana
06/15/2018 11:08 AM CDT
>>I don't see why one couldn't create an instant-on spell type that bypasses prep-cast kind of like prep-target can be bypassed via "target." Then, slap NMU text on it and call it a barb dance, thief khri, etc. I get that it's a lot of dev work and unlikely to become a priority even if The Powers That Be agree, but that doesn't mean it can't be a goal or won't make the game better. If that's in fact not an option, like I stated before, I'd caution against wishing for prep-cast over instant-on abilities.<<
The target verb doesn't bypass prep time (since ummm...Magic 2.0, I think). Target time substitutes for prep time in the whether-you-can-cast-this-spell calculation.
Instant-on spells would be pretty OP compared to traditional spells, IMO.
Mazrian
The target verb doesn't bypass prep time (since ummm...Magic 2.0, I think). Target time substitutes for prep time in the whether-you-can-cast-this-spell calculation.
Instant-on spells would be pretty OP compared to traditional spells, IMO.
Mazrian
2DUMBARSE
Re: NMU's and arcane mana
06/15/2018 01:33 PM CDT
>Instant-on spells would be pretty OP compared to traditional spells, IMO.
I'll claim ignorance on this one. Isn't that effectively what NMUs have now? Just substitute prep time for RT, like cast RT but longer. That's what I'm referring to when I mean instant-on. If that's not how it works, then, yeah, totally OP.
I'll claim ignorance on this one. Isn't that effectively what NMUs have now? Just substitute prep time for RT, like cast RT but longer. That's what I'm referring to when I mean instant-on. If that's not how it works, then, yeah, totally OP.
DAEMETHEUS
Re: NMU's and arcane mana
06/25/2018 12:54 PM CDT
Kind of. The instant-on spells have no variability. You can't push more IF/conc into them, nor can you push less in attempts to add another ability. This means that MUs have more flexibility in determining how they want to approach a situation. Barbs and Thieves have fixed abilities with fixed results--I can't make an ability stronger, or align greater potency spell stance, to push through MU resistances. It's a trade-off.
Personally, I hate spell-casting, and I love the instant-on abilities even if with this trade-off. It just means I have to work around strategies that involve fixed expenditure, which is itself not "easy mode". If I start something because I think have to respond to it, it's full force/full cost, mentally screaming "IT'S GO TIME!", meaning that I have to be very particular about timing and cost management as the situation dictates.
I think if spells had variable cost but could be instant-on, then we're talking about the possibility of having OP spell casters that could (for instance) put up Aether Cloak instantly as they see a spell being targeted at them, rather than debating when to bring it up situationally.
I'm also a fan of not having every skill if that means uniqueness to the guild (this sounds anti-TDP, I get it) so that we can see more interesting distinctions, or strengths and weaknesses, between guilds. I dislike overlap for the sake of bland "fairness". I'm okay with having to work harder for some things, as long as that in itself isn't all screwy to begin with, but not by making everyone have the same things.
If Barbs and Thieves can't use mana, okay, what else would we utilize that's "magic-like" in its place? Barbarians are the perfect physical form, and Thieves (obviously) are the perfect mental form. Dunno.
>I'd hate the game to become Magerealms (guest starring Barbarians) even more.
>>It's a problem of development in the sense that Thieves and Barbarians require separate development work because they work on separate frameworks from the rest of the guilds.
Is that really what's causing us to be lackluster? Is having separate frameworks truly what's hindering development for Barbarians and Thieves, or is this an expected fix to bandage a TDP/skill/functionality wound that potentially can be solved elsewhere but still remain on those separate systems? What's the cost of moving to those systems? Is it 100% beneficial? Why shouldn't we move to those systems?
Personally, I hate spell-casting, and I love the instant-on abilities even if with this trade-off. It just means I have to work around strategies that involve fixed expenditure, which is itself not "easy mode". If I start something because I think have to respond to it, it's full force/full cost, mentally screaming "IT'S GO TIME!", meaning that I have to be very particular about timing and cost management as the situation dictates.
I think if spells had variable cost but could be instant-on, then we're talking about the possibility of having OP spell casters that could (for instance) put up Aether Cloak instantly as they see a spell being targeted at them, rather than debating when to bring it up situationally.
I'm also a fan of not having every skill if that means uniqueness to the guild (this sounds anti-TDP, I get it) so that we can see more interesting distinctions, or strengths and weaknesses, between guilds. I dislike overlap for the sake of bland "fairness". I'm okay with having to work harder for some things, as long as that in itself isn't all screwy to begin with, but not by making everyone have the same things.
If Barbs and Thieves can't use mana, okay, what else would we utilize that's "magic-like" in its place? Barbarians are the perfect physical form, and Thieves (obviously) are the perfect mental form. Dunno.
>I'd hate the game to become Magerealms (guest starring Barbarians) even more.
>>It's a problem of development in the sense that Thieves and Barbarians require separate development work because they work on separate frameworks from the rest of the guilds.
Is that really what's causing us to be lackluster? Is having separate frameworks truly what's hindering development for Barbarians and Thieves, or is this an expected fix to bandage a TDP/skill/functionality wound that potentially can be solved elsewhere but still remain on those separate systems? What's the cost of moving to those systems? Is it 100% beneficial? Why shouldn't we move to those systems?
SYRAKEN
Re: NMU's and arcane mana
08/26/2018 02:56 AM CDT
As a Commoner with 200+ Arcana who is constantly buying and eating Weevils and surrounding myself with Alabaster Flasks and weapon-blessing sheaths (and other magical items/weapons), having a Mana Tuner installed so that I a Commoner can see the strength of mana in an area (and wanting that Sorcery Focus whenever it turns up), and constantly praying to Truffenyi (all of these things culminating in my attempt to gain spontaneous attunement by chance or grace), I am delighted by the conversation in here (where its not a debate focused on Which Magic Users Are The Strongest), and hope the discussion continues on regarding NMU's having access to magic.
"I, for one, think it's nice to have new folks who are excited and already care enough about the game to offer suggestions. We need more of that." -Solomon
Thanks for being in my corner Solomon, come back soon.
