>>And I tend to think that in terms of ease of use and practicality, shooting someone in the face with a crossbow should win over TM.

This is a quote I'm pulling from a GM on another thread that I want to discuss for clarification, for myself at least.

I've always wondered why a fully targeted spell isn't as effective as a fully aimed ranged attack. Now per this quote above, it is true that loading a bow, aiming and firing vs weaving a complex spell pattern around a target. This I completely agree with but in terms of the time that it takes to fully target the opponent, not on the potential accuracy of both actions.

I could also make the argument that with targeting a complex spell to focal point on the opponent takes entirely much more effort than aiming a bow, so how with the massive concentration that it takes is a spell not more accurate? With bows, distance between the two according to missile/pole/melee should be a factor but does the same apply to targeting with magic?

So can someone please enlighten me on this concept of ranged attacks being more effective compared to targeted magic? Thanks.

---

Which would be worse? To live as a monster or to die as a good man?

>>This makes no sense to me. The more concentration something takes in a hectic place like combat, the less accurate you're going to be. You're going to be more accurate with the simplest weapon available to you. Point and shoot is easier than weaving magical patterns.

Yes, I thought about this after I posted but the same can be said for someone running at person who is aiming at them with a bow. They aren't going to stand completely still for you and will obviously try to avoid getting shot by any means necessary.

---

Which would be worse? To live as a monster or to die as a good man?

>They aren't going to stand completely still for you and will obviously try to avoid getting shot by any means necessary

The same is true of TM. They're going to avoid getting shot by any means necessary, regardless of what is being shot at them. The difficulty of shooting it at them is completely different, however.


Elemental Lord Opieus, Expert Warrior Mage of Elanthia
"For a bunch of radical empiricists, the Philosophers' system relies on a whole lot of faith." ~Armifer

<<But you can't exactly see a spell pattern being formed around you and once they cast at you, its typically too late to act.

That's not correct. I don't have the messaging, but if someone target's you while they're hidden you can sense them forming a target matrix around you despite not being even aware of their presence. I believe it involves a perception check to pull off, but its sensable.

-Evran

"RAGE + TEAR + EYE + RESO + HARM + DRUM + MISD + PRIDE + Your choice of Cyclic + AoE stun/knockdown as needed without losing buffs = OMG! I just crapped my pants!" -Evran

>But you can't exactly see a spell pattern being formed around you and once they cast at you, its typically too late to act.

You still have to adjust from the time the spell is cast to the time it hits the target. A target matrix doesn't lock on to the target once it's fully formed.


Elemental Lord Opieus, Expert Warrior Mage of Elanthia
"For a bunch of radical empiricists, the Philosophers' system relies on a whole lot of faith." ~Armifer

Being a Barb not sure how it is now a days but are you comparing with or with the defendent wearing a shield.In the old days some spells used to by pass shield without it's protection factored into defenses I believe where firing a arrow it's always factored in.That might be a way to balance them out.One might be more effective against a shield user since the bow agility bonus was nerfed to bring them in line with the way agility works with say a sword.

>>I'm assuming in good faith that the GM poster did not mean to imply, with the "ease of use" reference, that TM should continue to be hamstrung by the atrociousness of the current Target verb mechanics.

What would it use if not target?

I thought TARGET gave the same mechanics-bonus as AIM? What is it, like an extra 30% of your skill for waiting for full target/aim?

__
~Leilond
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Leilond
http://soundsoftime.bravehost.com

>>Sorry, I'll clarify. I want a targeting verb that, like Aim, works correctly with the stealth system. I'm not as concerned about the bonus, I think that will end up fair. I'd like to be able to target hidden people with same ease as I can aim at them.

I know there was an excuse as to why you couldn't target magic while hidden (and I believe it had a lot to do with the targeting matrix being visible).

Speaking of stealth and tm, would it be feasible to add poaching capability to TM spells? With stealth getting changed to not be a win button it would be nice to get some more functionality there. I'm not suggesting the check use PP since that would probably be unbalanced, but a standard issue poach check would be fantastic.


-Strk

>I second this for Moon Mage hide/stalk training reasons. Most Moon Mages who have 1000+ stealth don't have the weapon abilities to hit what teaches hide/stalk.

I disagree. Moon mages who haven't trained up weapons don't have the ability to hit with mundane weapons while ambushing. But since ambushing is a decent bonus to your attack and stealth skills cap higher than other combat skills, ambushing for moon mages works fine.

That said, I fully support TM poaching. Sounds like fun.

---

To prove my first point, I can ambush in elder armadillos with all of these weapons:

Light Edged: 832 68% clear (0/34) Medium Edged: 736 31% clear (0/34)
Heavy Edged: 777 37% clear (0/34) Twohanded Edged: 811 32% clear (0/34)
Medium Blunt: 702 55% clear (0/34) Heavy Blunt: 682 24% clear (0/34)
Twohanded Blunt: 727 25% clear (0/34) Short Staff: 695 03% clear (0/34)
Pikes: 610 28% clear (0/34) Halberds: 778 82% clear (0/34)
Brawling: 784 73% clear (0/34) Offhand Weapon: 817 78% clear (0/34)

1st Highest: Light Thrown - 841
2nd Highest: Light Edged - 832
3rd Highest: Offhand Weapon - 817

Hiding: 1152 18.49% clear (0/34)

If I had focused on just a few weapons, the skills would be a lot closer. As it is, I have no issues with ambushing.

---

>describe boar
It's a boar. It doesn't like you.

GM Armifer is full of win. Make it so...


________________________________________

Clerics are on the sectual radar.

Just to be clear - I didn't do it. Not sure who did, but it wasn't me.

- GM Raesh

>>My hope is to have TARGET working almost identically to AIM. There is no conceptual reason why TM poaching or TM spells against hidden should fail, just some mechanical hurdles to clear.

How much harder will it be than poaching with a weapon is about the only question I have.

>>Honest question: why should it be harder than with a weapon? I'm not aware off-hand of any good reason to change the difficulty one way or the other, but I'll happily admit Zeyurn is usually my go-to for the nitty-gritty of stealth contests.

Weapons tend to (I stress tend) have less flash going on around them (e.g. when I aim with a weapon, there's no matrix being formed, I'm simply drawing a bead, nothing supernatural about it). It always seemed that someone targeting you with a spell was something you sensed rather than, necessarily, saw.

My question was intended to raise this question, obviously, because I was hoping you'd explore a bit more deeply the theory of targeting magic. Justifying it immediately wasn't really my expectation.

I don't see a reason to make TM poaching even more difficult than mundane poaching. Mundane aiming from stealth already takes place with no stealth check, or possibility of "sensing" it.

What would be cool, although maybe off topic, would be the ability to hide your target matrix from PP detection so that the MU target couldn't sense the target forming. Don't WMs have a pathway that does that in the open? Maybe an equivalent that worked only from hiding, for TM poaching, could be a feat or something.

>>NMUs have had little trouble sensing magic thrown their way to this point; Traders are of course well behind Thieves and Barbarians on that, but just because they're not trained in TM doesn't mean they're not familiar with the concept. They'd probably recognize that sensation between their shoulder blades for what it is.

If we go for internal consistency at the Magic Lorez level there shouldn't be a direct sensation except in the highly specific case of within-realms MUs. For example, if a Warrior Mage is making the targeting matrix, only a Bard or another Warrior Mage would have the potential to sense it happening on the magic level. That's why I focused instead on what kind of somantic tells would be seen instead.

If we go for internal consistency at the current messaging level, we need to redefine with a targeting matrix is and what it's supposedly doing at the magic theory level.

The original Magic Theory stuff was innovative, but did not escape the curse of being fundamentally a posthoc explanation of mechanics that existed prior to it. Part of what I am focusing on in Magic 3 is trying to overtly rework these areas so that the game and the RP of the game are not in conflict.

-Armifer
"In our days truth is taken to result from the effacing of the living man behind the mathematical structures that think themselves out in him, rather than he be thinking them." - Emmanuel Levinas

>From the target side of it, you always notice when someone is targeting you, but it's not necessarily seeing them.

No, you notice when someone casts at you. You can target from hiding just dandy. Just like ranged, you don't see people aiming all the time, but they have a good chance of failing the surprise ambush factor when firing. I see no reason magic shouldn't fall under these lines. I especially like that same mana types have a good chance of noticing the influx of their streams pointed directly at them, considering these are community streams.

I would still like to see a magic snipe (other than necros). I agree a giant WM flaming ball of fire might out a hiding spot, or maybe it should at least give everyone in room spot effect on the person since they can narrow down the direction from the singed trees/grass. It still shouldn't bring them automatically out, yea I saw him cast it, I have spot on him, but the nub with no perception standing next to me didn't see him, they were too excited at a massive ball of flame melting that goblins face. That doesn't mean the caster is up dancing the jig (though most warmies do), he could still be sitting in the bush 'hiding'.

Maybe less penalty for spells like burn where it's a single shaft of light from above that I could be gesturing from anywhere, even with ice patch since nothing flys at the target, but forms under it.

Even bards, since they are so damn good with sound, maybe they have a feat that allows them with enough skill to bounce their voice off certain buildings/objects etc that you don't know which direction the sound came from because it's flooding in from all over. It's a trick marksmen use to bounce the crack of the round off trees to give that extra few seconds of confusion.

>I would still like to see a magic snipe (other than necros).

No.

-Z