Since there's been a few TM-related threads going on the boards lately, and I've let slip that I'm doing a rewrite of the system in the near future, I thought I'd sum up what's going to happen to reduce the rampant speculation.

Last year, my focus was on reworking the TM messaging system. This year, I will be working on the mechanics behind TM itself to fix a major bug, several smaller ones, and clean the system up. Below I'll outline the major problem and the steps being taken to fix it, along with any incidental things we're going to be changing in the process.

Imagine, if you will, a bow and arrow. You can snap-shoot the bow, but you take a substantial penalty to your attack.

Now consider a bow that fires a dozen arrows at once. You can also snap-shoot this bow, and each attack is only penalized half as much as the snap shot with the single arrow.

Two bows. One shot with a big attack penalty, or a dozen shots with a much lower attack penalty. Which would you choose to train with? This is the difference between single-shot spells and multi-shot spells, and the reason why multi-shot spells are so hot.

Chain Lightning, which can snap off 4-22 attacks with half the attack penalty of a snapped Aether Lash, is merely the most extreme example, and therefore is the most-scrutinized abuser.

That defines the problem, but what about the solution? In examining the examples above, I left out one thing: targeting. A single-shot spell can be targeted, while a multi-shot spell cannot due to technical reasons. Because it can't be targeted, it was given a lower attack penalty. Removing this abused benefit means putting multi-shot spells in line with single-shot spells in a very fundamental way:

Every targeted spell will require targeting to be fully effective; every targeted spell that is not targeted will have the same attack penalty.

I'll let that statement sink in a bit before I proceed.

Okay, still with me?

Yes, this means that some very big technical changes are going to take place. What is currently impossible will be made possible. How they will be made possible is not within the scope of this message; I just wanted to give everyone an idea of what's coming down the pipe this year.

Here are a few bullet points to hopefully answer some of the more obvious questions.

- Multi-shot spells are being defined as spells which produce more than one attack simultaneously (i.e. within the same initial call to the magic system).

- Yes, it will be possible to target area effect and multi-shot spells. Delayed-effect spells too (such as Crystal Spike and Dragon's Breath).

- Because of their increased potential for damage, area effect and multi-shot spells will each require additional targeting time. This is cumulative; the only area effect and multi-shot spell, Chain Lightning, will require significant targeting time to reach full effectiveness.

- Yes, this means that snap casts of CL will be rendered far less effective. On the other hand, if you're willing to invest the time to target, you can make it as accurate as any other TM spell.

- Targeted enchantes will require targeting to be fully effective. No, Bards will not be able to target spells while targeting an enchante (and vice versa). Yes, they will have to maintain that target pattern while playing the enchante; they will also have to pass skill checks to maintain it.

- The Focus Pathway of Quickness formula will be altered to compensate for the new targeting times.

- We'll be revisiting multi-shot spells to ensure that their multi-shot-ness is being consistently calculated within the core system, and (up/down)tweaking this factor as necessary based on the new target time balancer.

- BMR is going to be capped at how much it can affect TM skill. This has nothing to do with the BMR rewrite; that system simply spits out a number, which the TM system then applies to accuracy. The system will now have the opportunity to change the applied value to reflect global caps.

- The bug (and yes, it is a bug) that brings a TM spell to full prep when targeting will be squashed. What remains to be seen is how we will deal with the backfire potential (and it may not necessarily result in backfire).

At this point there is no ETA on the rewrite. It has been approved, but it's still in the technical planning phase -- in other words, how I'm going to pull off the impossible is still being worked out. :)


- GM Wythor

What goes up
is futile --
unless it goes out

I don't know if you plan to say much, and I imagine it may get drowned in the noise some since bard's targeted enchantes aren't as critical to most magic users out there, but any concept of how that will work mechanically? Part of what makes enchantes useful is the lack of constant attention to it (sung and chanted ones especially). I am fine, and in fact happy, to see tm skill checks and targetting take place, I just want a feel for if I am going to start having to type "target x" over and over again while I'm already chanting pyre, etc...

If it's too early for any level of detail, no worries. Just came into my head since I was using it all of an hour ago while hunting.


- The Moose

>>At this point there is no ETA on the rewrite. It has been approved, but it's still in the technical planning phase -- in other words, how I'm going to pull off the impossible is still being worked out. :)

Just take your time, no rush at all.

>>- Targeted enchantes will require targeting to be fully effective. No, Bards will not be able to target spells while targeting an enchante (and vice versa). Yes, they will have to maintain that target pattern while playing the enchante; they will also have to pass skill checks to maintain it.

Any more info you can give on this? I'm not certain how this would work. I already consider enchantes the least convenient form of magic in DR, and I get worried any time they get even more complicated. TBH, I just wish we could stop making enchantes and give the bards some actual spells based on aurally perceived magic, but that's a whole other topic.

-=Issus=-

Come to the dark side noob. It's not too late for you.

Thanks for this thread, Wythor. Everything here sounds pretty reasonable to me. Especially the part about BMR, heh.

> If I'm understanding the terminology correctly spells like Gar Zeng and Fire Shard (occasionally) are multi-shot...

>- Multi-shot spells are being defined as spells which produce more than one attack simultaneously (i.e. within the same initial call to the magic system).

As far as I know, Gar Zeng and Fire Shard are Pulse spells: they make one attack then call the magic system again for additional attacks.

>As far as I know, Gar Zeng and Fire Shard are Pulse spells: they make one attack then call the magic system again for additional attacks.

No. Pulse spells are TKS, new Shadow Web, Fire Rain, etc. Anything that's instant is a multi-shot spell.

Wythor,
While I'm sure you didn't mean to open up the Bard can of worms, I am also curious as to how targetting will work for enchantes. I mean, right now the offensive enchantes are set to either hit everyone not in your group or everything you are engaged to. I am just having a hard time seeing how this will work, and will we be able to target specific victims? If so, what's the benefit of it being an enchante over a spell?

Inquiring Minds...


~ Terra

>>Will targeting the Phoenix's Pyre enchante bring it up to the level of damage it is currently at or increase its damage threshold higher than where it currently lies? Will targeting this enchante enable us to target a single individual, or will it only have the target area functionality?

Currently enchantes use the same faux target penalty that Chain Lightning, Gar Zeng, Fire Rain, and a ton of other spells use. They are more accurate than a snap-cast of a single-shot spell, but not as accurate as a fully-targeted spell.

If you spend time targeting your enchante, you will see its damage potential increase.


- GM Wythor

What goes up
is futile --
unless it goes out

>>Is this going to be babystepped in or should we expect one giant wallop to the back of the head?

Since the entire system is interconnected, there will not be a way to pour the changes in slowly. One day you won't be able to target these spells, and the next day you will.

I am not promising that the affected spells will actually do anything with the ability to target them; each multi-shot, delayed--effect, or area effect spell will have to be adjusted slightly to take advantage of the new targeting mechanics. In the interim, expect their effectiveness to be reduced to global snap-shot accuracy.


- GM Wythor

What goes up
is futile --
unless it goes out

>>Are multi-shot spells pulse spells? Are they two different things? Is CL subject to the pulse-spell problems?

>>Pulse spells are TKS, new Shadow Web, Fire Rain, etc. Anything that's instant is a multi-shot spell.

The 'Pulse Spell System' is a subsystem of magic that is used by spells that either generate effects independent of the CAST verb (such as Dragon's Breath, Fire Rain, or Crystal Spike) or generate multiple identical effects with a single CAST (such as Frostbite, Gar Zeng, or Chain Lightning).

The system is used to preserve important values so that each new effect of the spell is treated like a fresh cast and the victim doesn't benefit from the resistance or barriers of others. (Among other things, which I can't reveal.)

Any type of spell (contested, beneficial, or targeted) can use the pulse system, but targeted spells encounter a unique problem: the target time (used to calculate accuracy) isn't preserved. This led to the static penalty workaround that is now causing spells with an instant (and usually multi-shot) effect to become more accurate than spells that don't use the pulse system.

Multi-shot, delayed-effect, and area effect spells all use the pulse system (if they don't, they tend to break the magic system). The only spells that shouldn't use it are single-target, single-effect spells.

Area effect spells can be delayed-effect (Fire Rain) and multi-shot (Chain Lightning). Multi-shot spells can be delayed-effect (Harm Horde). They are all considered 'pulse' spells.

Delayed-effect spells that are neither area effect nor multi-shot, because of the delay between effects, will not require additional target time.

Area effect spells, because they have the potential to affect multiple targets, will require additional target time.

Multi-shot spells, because they create multiple strikes, will require additional target time.


- GM Wythor

What goes up
is futile --
unless it goes out

>>In other words, how we do targeted enchantes will depend a great deal on how targeting in general will be performed. ... From a syntax standpoint, you'll just have to type TARGET and the system will decide what you want to do.<<

>>Currently enchantes use the same faux target penalty that Chain Lightning, Gar Zeng, Fire Rain, and a ton of other spells use. They are more accurate than a snap-cast of a single-shot spell, but not as accurate as a fully-targeted spell.<<

Thank you Wythor, for taking the time to answer all of our questions/speculations, even if the answer is "We're not sure yet". That kind of communication makes the whole 'ruh-roh things are gonna change' process a ton easier.

Also good to know about the enchantes, I look forward to targetting my songs of doom.


~ Terra

My only suggestion is that you shouldn't have to target ONE thing with an AOE to get its full effect. It takes great power and ability to use these spells anyways. If we can already cast without targeting and it hits anything facing and or advancing us, why cant we target whatever is facing us or advancing us without having to specify a single target?


I know you GM's dont like PvP, Most of us do, it takes the grind out of 'training' and puts some spice into RP. Simply ignoring the effect your changes might bring in terms of PvP and the balance that comes with it is a great turn off for folks who have put in years into a character and have spent a nice chunk of change on in the time it has taken. No its not all about PvP but without it DR would not be what it is today, not all of its bad.

Now saying that,

Will capped TM spells get a boost from what they are now fully targeted? As is the case with capped bow's and capped arrows?

Its already silly enough that if you put two people together with near the same skills, one has 300 TM, the other has 300 Long bow, No boosts, a Capped TM spell vs LB and capped arrows. The bow does significantly more in terms of getting through defenses
and dealing damage.

And also how might this affect higher tier spells? The more difficult the spell is the more damage it causes but with a bigger accuracy penalty per tier I.E Lash, ballista, Lightning bolt making the 300 tm much less potent than 300 in a weapon. With the drawback that you can only get 1-3 good mana fully targeted shots(Considering your opponent or critter is just standing there staring into space as you gather the time to let the spell fully prep and target) before you have tapped your mana supply.

Just a couple of questions. I would like to add aswell Wythor, you have done a wonderful job so far in terms of developing the mighty Warrior Mage guild since you have been around. I would like to thank you for the time and commitment you have given all of us

Sorry it's taken so long to respond to this issue. This is a rather lengthy post (for me), so beware!

>>Will capped TM spells get a boost from what they are now fully targeted?

If by 'boost' you mean increased beyond what they are now, then no. The values of the bonus due to targeting will not be changing. This is because they already enjoy a 'boost' similar to ranged weapons.

>>Its already silly enough that if you put two people together with near the same skills, one has 300 TM, the other has 300 Long bow, No boosts, a Capped TM spell vs LB and capped arrows. The bow does significantly more in terms of getting through defenses

>>And also how might this affect higher tier spells? The more difficult the spell is the more damage it causes but with a bigger accuracy penalty per tier I.E Lash, ballista, Lightning bolt making the 300 tm much less potent than 300 in a weapon. With the drawback that you can only get 1-3 good mana fully targeted shots(Considering your opponent or critter is just standing there staring into space as you gather the time to let the spell fully prep and target) before you have tapped your mana supply.

Firstly, there is no 'standard accuracy penalty' to higher-tier spells. Lightning Bolt has an accuracy penalty because it bypasses shields. Aether Lash is, to put it mildly, overpowered in the extreme when comparing its cost-to-benefit-ratio. Its damage is more characteristic of what we would allow a 5th tier spell. Magnetic Ballista cannot be targeted and so suffers from a reduction of potentially 2/3 of the bonus from targeting.

Higher-tier spells are more mana efficient and, in general, should be as accurate as lower-tier spells. What's unfortunate is that the current TM system was written with basic spells like Aether Lance in mind, and as a result we've had to shoehorn spells like Lightning Bolt, Chain Lightning, Fire Shard, Fire Rain, Magnetic Ballista, Ball Lightning, and most of the rest of them into a system that just isn't the right size.

When the rewrite is finished, the TM system will be able to handle any type of spell we throw at it. Non-damaging, no-miss, area effect, enchantes, multishot, parryable, delayed-effect, remote... it'll handle them all with consistent mechanics that won't have to be written from scratch each time. The system is being designed with the improbable and the ungainly in mind, and rewritten so that as we expand our idea of what a TM spell can do, it can grow with our concepts.

Secondly, an anecdote.

When I became a GM, I was fresh out of Warrior Magedom and rabidly pro-TM. I felt that TM spells were poor shadows of ranged weapons, and I was desperate that the existing crop of longtime GMs hear my plight. After all, I thought that maybe, just possibly, they had lost touch with what it was like to be a player? Maybe they couldn't see what I saw when I played every day?

So I did a sensible, GMly thing. Over a period of time I pulled together a spreadsheet of pros and cons to ranged and TM, trying to prove objectively that TM was underpowered and needed to be tweaked to be more in line with ranged. I tallied up every conceivable concrete number related to each system, and then listed out all of the subjective issues I could think of from my playing days.

The result? By the time I had counted everything up, cancelled out the subjectively similar benefits, costs, and drawbacks, and mentally weighed the remainder, I discovered that the two came out pretty much even.

My argument remained unvoiced, and I took away a valuable lesson from the experience.


- GM Wythor

What goes up
is futile --
unless it goes out

>The result? By the time I had counted everything up, cancelled out the subjectively similar benefits, costs, and drawbacks, and mentally weighed the remainder, I discovered that the two came out pretty much even.

That seems like a pretty subjective way to compare things...

>When comparing apples to oranges, is there really any other way?

How about an actual test of some sort?

>If you take apples and oranges and compare them with tests, the test results are going to be as different as the subjects themselves.

I have to agree, for what it's worth.

How much damage is DFA worth? How about multiple attacks?

Any means of comparison on anything but exact categories are going to be subjective. At best, all you can get is "about equally useful," and even that would be a huge stretch, and still pretty subjective.

Barring a miricle, all you can really do is ask "does this spell do what it's supposed to, in a manner fair both to the caster and the target, irrespective of other spells?"

Now if you want to compare apples to apples, then that's a different kettle of lemonaid.

---

Magic's Death Caraamon Makdasi,
Gor'Tog Barbarian Extrordi...Well somewhat average
Hunta Talna Kortok, built by Gor'Togs, for Gor'Togs
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg2/caraamon/home.html

>"Which one splatters the most when you throw it at a wall?"

Sure. Then you have to ask, if spell A splatters more than spell B, but spell B also burns in open cuts, are they equal?

Good: Comparing Energy Bolt to Fire Shard.
Bad: Comparing Fire Shard to Lightening Bolt.
Even Worse: Comparing Fire Shard to Halt.

---

Magic's Death Caraamon Makdasi,
Gor'Tog Barbarian Extrordi...Well somewhat average
Hunta Talna Kortok, built by Gor'Togs, for Gor'Togs
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg2/caraamon/home.html

Comparing a cop with a paramedic or firefighter or a bodyguard is what you're doing with GvG comparisons. Not gonna help. The bottomline question is if DR opened up a new instance and 100 players created characters today, is the population spread roughly the way you envisioned.

---

"When I grow up, I want to be a soulless monster trapped in a suit of enchanted armor and compelled into violent service for a commercial institution through torturous psychic conditioning." -- Armifer