What disabling effects can a necromancer achieve with PV or VS?
-The Forsaken Rakash
http://elanthipedia.org/w/index.php/Khiol
KHIOL
ALGOTHI
Re: disablers...
11/26/2012 10:59 PM CST
They both cause Immobilization.
Elusive
mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
Elusive
mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
SHADOWCHIEF3
Re: disablers...
11/27/2012 12:18 AM CST
Immobilization obviously now causes nothing but them not being able to do anything? as a magic SECONDARY and weapon TERT this is really harsh since we basically have no spells to actually cause somebody to be hit easier, and our skillsets are basically set up to make it harder to hit anybody period.
ALGOTHI
Re: disablers...
11/27/2012 12:46 AM CST
>Immobilization obviously now causes nothing but them not being able to do anything?
It may be observational bias, but it seems to me I hit things better when they are immobilized. It may be because they cant attack an generate positive balance, however. That being said, reducing the number of incoming attacks is a pretty nice benefit in itself.
>as a magic SECONDARY and weapon TERT this is really harsh since we basically have no spells to actually cause somebody to be hit easier
IVM is an "In Sphere" TM boost, that's pretty powerful in its own right. We also have HP, while it doesnt increase accuracy does make what does hit hurt a lot more.
>and our skillsets are basically set up to make it harder to hit anybody period.
Personally I don't subscribe to the notion that all guilds should have a way to reduce their weakness. But if you absolutely want a weapon booster, pick some sorcery feats and steal one from another guild.
Elusive
mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
It may be observational bias, but it seems to me I hit things better when they are immobilized. It may be because they cant attack an generate positive balance, however. That being said, reducing the number of incoming attacks is a pretty nice benefit in itself.
>as a magic SECONDARY and weapon TERT this is really harsh since we basically have no spells to actually cause somebody to be hit easier
IVM is an "In Sphere" TM boost, that's pretty powerful in its own right. We also have HP, while it doesnt increase accuracy does make what does hit hurt a lot more.
>and our skillsets are basically set up to make it harder to hit anybody period.
Personally I don't subscribe to the notion that all guilds should have a way to reduce their weakness. But if you absolutely want a weapon booster, pick some sorcery feats and steal one from another guild.
Elusive
mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
DR-RICINUS
Re: disablers...
11/27/2012 01:24 AM CST
Immobilize is a good thing to have.
AGM Ricinus
Dev Systems
Cleric Advocate
AGM Ricinus
Dev Systems
Cleric Advocate
XSETSFIRE
Re: disablers...
11/27/2012 03:30 AM CST
>Immobilization obviously now causes nothing but them not being able to do anything?
I second that. The effect is not noticeable at all in Test.
I am fairly sure Kodius said it is suppose to cause a random size penalty to defenses.
I tried it using weapons that normally barely hit, and I did not see an increase in amount of hits.
I also tried it with weapons that always hit where I stanced down to where I did not. I still did not hit with immobilization in effect.
I found stun to be way more effective, and the only thing that it does is affect target balance?
I second that. The effect is not noticeable at all in Test.
I am fairly sure Kodius said it is suppose to cause a random size penalty to defenses.
I tried it using weapons that normally barely hit, and I did not see an increase in amount of hits.
I also tried it with weapons that always hit where I stanced down to where I did not. I still did not hit with immobilization in effect.
I found stun to be way more effective, and the only thing that it does is affect target balance?
KHIOL
Re: disablers...
11/27/2012 10:10 AM CST
>I found stun to be way more effective, and the only thing that it does is affect target balance?
I would personally feel a bit unbalanced, possibly unable to defend myself as well if I had horrific visions forced into my head!
-The Forsaken Rakash
http://elanthipedia.org/w/index.php/Khiol
I would personally feel a bit unbalanced, possibly unable to defend myself as well if I had horrific visions forced into my head!
-The Forsaken Rakash
http://elanthipedia.org/w/index.php/Khiol
JHALIASCLERIC
Re: disablers...
12/05/2012 07:55 AM CST
I'm finding that HP, PV, and VoD to be fairly poor trainers of Debil. If I cast 20 mana full prep shots on every critter I face, Debil hardly moves. There also seems to be a learning timer on Debilitation spells, such that I don't actual earn xp if I've cast another debilitation spell recently?
This is kind of a drag, as it seems tricky to get Warding, Augmentation, and Debilitation to move very reasonably in combat. Would it be possible to earn Warding and Augmentation everytime a Ward or an Augmentation is used? As in, every time a Ward reduces an attack, you gain Warding xp, and every time you evade while under PHP or hide while under OBF, you gain Augmentation xp? Just laying the spells down seems an ineffective way to train the skills; I haven't seen Aug, Debil, or Warding get above 4/34.
This is kind of a drag, as it seems tricky to get Warding, Augmentation, and Debilitation to move very reasonably in combat. Would it be possible to earn Warding and Augmentation everytime a Ward or an Augmentation is used? As in, every time a Ward reduces an attack, you gain Warding xp, and every time you evade while under PHP or hide while under OBF, you gain Augmentation xp? Just laying the spells down seems an ineffective way to train the skills; I haven't seen Aug, Debil, or Warding get above 4/34.
MYTHORLOGICAL
Re: disablers...
12/05/2012 02:36 PM CST
Immobilization turning into nothing but an invisible RT is not cool. It really sucks for us, since we rely on PV so much, but also it doesn't make sense. How does being immobilized NOT give a defense debuff? The target can't move to dodge, or raise a sword to parry, or maneuver a shield to block... So logically yeah, it should be a pretty substantial defensive debuff.
Markat says, "Pleasant people without moral faults, going to church every week and abstaining from sins such as vanity and zombies. Feh...."
Markat says, "Pleasant people without moral faults, going to church every week and abstaining from sins such as vanity and zombies. Feh...."
QUARRIC3
Re: disablers...
12/05/2012 02:58 PM CST
I agree about disablers, not just from a necromancer perspective but any guilds spells that cause immobilization. If you are forced immobile I should be able to walk up to you and pick your nose if i so desire... instead somehow immobile means dodge/block/parry as normal .... i don't get it.
Words Words Words .. in the end thats all it is
Words Words Words .. in the end thats all it is
OLSONM6
Re: disablers...
12/05/2012 03:04 PM CST
>somehow immobile means dodge/block/parry as normal .... i don't get it.
It's similar with nerve damage and complete paralysis of the entire body. You have to give up some realism for playability.
It's similar with nerve damage and complete paralysis of the entire body. You have to give up some realism for playability.
GRIM45
Re: disablers...
12/05/2012 03:06 PM CST
>>Immobilization turning into nothing but an invisible RT is not cool. It really sucks for us, since we rely on PV so much, but also it doesn't make sense. How does being immobilized NOT give a defense debuff? The target can't move to dodge, or raise a sword to parry, or maneuver a shield to block... So logically yeah, it should be a pretty substantial defensive debuff.
Please try to understand the difference between bugged, and design changes.
TG, TG, GL, et al.
"Disagreement with the fundamental plan at this point is akin to supporting Richard III vs the Tudors."
-Raesh
Please try to understand the difference between bugged, and design changes.
TG, TG, GL, et al.
"Disagreement with the fundamental plan at this point is akin to supporting Richard III vs the Tudors."
-Raesh
GRIM45
Re: disablers...
12/05/2012 03:43 PM CST
>>Grim, did you see the word "bug" or "bugged" anywhere in her post?
No. And? The GMs have already (repeatedly) stated that immobilization is (or should) be providing defensive penalties. To continue to post as if immobilization by design no longer provides defensive penalties is either a\ misunderstanding bugs vs design or (ironically) b\ trolling itself. Take your pick.
TG, TG, GL, et al.
"Disagreement with the fundamental plan at this point is akin to supporting Richard III vs the Tudors."
-Raesh
No. And? The GMs have already (repeatedly) stated that immobilization is (or should) be providing defensive penalties. To continue to post as if immobilization by design no longer provides defensive penalties is either a\ misunderstanding bugs vs design or (ironically) b\ trolling itself. Take your pick.
TG, TG, GL, et al.
"Disagreement with the fundamental plan at this point is akin to supporting Richard III vs the Tudors."
-Raesh
MYTHORLOGICAL
Re: disablers...
12/05/2012 03:48 PM CST
>The GMs have already (repeatedly) stated that immobilization is (or should) be providing defensive penalties.
It seems that not all of the GMs have the same understanding about it. They (vague, general 'they') have also said that immobilization was meant to be the way it currently is in 3.0. Sepharus, do you have a source handy?
Markat says, "Pleasant people without moral faults, going to church every week and abstaining from sins such as vanity and zombies. Feh...."
It seems that not all of the GMs have the same understanding about it. They (vague, general 'they') have also said that immobilization was meant to be the way it currently is in 3.0. Sepharus, do you have a source handy?
Markat says, "Pleasant people without moral faults, going to church every week and abstaining from sins such as vanity and zombies. Feh...."
SHADOWCHIEF3
Re: disablers...
12/05/2012 05:23 PM CST
<It seems that not all of the GMs have the same understanding about it. They (vague, general 'they') have also said that immobilization was meant to be the way it currently is in 3.0. Sepharus, do you have a source handy?
Actually I had mentioned it earlier yes, GM Ric only said Immobilization is a good thing to have. So i guess that could mean anything.
While we are on the subject, I was thinking today that since we have a very limited array of spells at our disposal that perhaps we could get other effects added to a few of our spells. VS is a aoe immobilize. I was thinking that maybe at the cost of a 3rd? i'm guessing spell slot it could also have a added effect of causing it to take longer to advance to melee, or maybe a balance hit, because of the solution mucking up their feet. It would be a secondary contest after this initial successful contest. Not exactly sure what it would contest, I was assuming athletics but I thought the GM's wanted to get away from contesting things like that. Seems like it would be fitting addition to a spell like this because of the nature of the spell. Probably to much to add but hey I personally could do without the AOE effect but i'm sure some people like it.
I guess it depends what Immobilize consists of after 3.0 on how worthwhile the effect is.
Oh and one other little thing i'd throw out there, how bout instead of a small edge requirement, it changed to sorcery? Seems it would fit better and maybe we'd also see a perk or two from that, I doubt we'll ever see anything as far as perks for a weapon. Also sorcery is in our SOI isn't it? Anyway, just rambling.
Actually I had mentioned it earlier yes, GM Ric only said Immobilization is a good thing to have. So i guess that could mean anything.
While we are on the subject, I was thinking today that since we have a very limited array of spells at our disposal that perhaps we could get other effects added to a few of our spells. VS is a aoe immobilize. I was thinking that maybe at the cost of a 3rd? i'm guessing spell slot it could also have a added effect of causing it to take longer to advance to melee, or maybe a balance hit, because of the solution mucking up their feet. It would be a secondary contest after this initial successful contest. Not exactly sure what it would contest, I was assuming athletics but I thought the GM's wanted to get away from contesting things like that. Seems like it would be fitting addition to a spell like this because of the nature of the spell. Probably to much to add but hey I personally could do without the AOE effect but i'm sure some people like it.
I guess it depends what Immobilize consists of after 3.0 on how worthwhile the effect is.
Oh and one other little thing i'd throw out there, how bout instead of a small edge requirement, it changed to sorcery? Seems it would fit better and maybe we'd also see a perk or two from that, I doubt we'll ever see anything as far as perks for a weapon. Also sorcery is in our SOI isn't it? Anyway, just rambling.
GRIM45
Re: disablers...
12/05/2012 05:50 PM CST
>>Oh and one other little thing i'd throw out there, how bout instead of a small edge requirement, it changed to sorcery? Seems it would fit better and maybe we'd also see a perk or two from that, I doubt we'll ever see anything as far as perks for a weapon. Also sorcery is in our SOI isn't it? Anyway, just rambling.
The small blade req is more thematic (as evident by how low it is) of Philosophers of the Knife. You are also 1 of 3 guilds that can use Sorcery as your Nth magic. So I guess you're already covered?
TG, TG, GL, et al.
"Disagreement with the fundamental plan at this point is akin to supporting Richard III vs the Tudors."
-Raesh
The small blade req is more thematic (as evident by how low it is) of Philosophers of the Knife. You are also 1 of 3 guilds that can use Sorcery as your Nth magic. So I guess you're already covered?
TG, TG, GL, et al.
"Disagreement with the fundamental plan at this point is akin to supporting Richard III vs the Tudors."
-Raesh
FELONIOUSPI
Re: disablers...
12/05/2012 06:38 PM CST
With the way LE fetish was explain , I don't think it's really guild theme to lose it as SOI. It seems like there's a number of slots for skill sets that just need to be filled. The one thing in our SOI that doesn't make as much sense to me is stealing. Unless there's a future way to learn it , it doesn't seem to be in our SOI to be in town so to speak.
Apparently , sorcery is already in our SOI.
Apparently , sorcery is already in our SOI.
SHADOWCHIEF3
Re: disablers...
12/05/2012 06:40 PM CST
actually I mentioned getting it enchanged for the small edge requirement for my own devious purposes....Like getting some sorcery ranks grandfathered, even if it would be a minimal gain.
GRIM45
Re: disablers...
12/05/2012 06:52 PM CST
>>With the way LE fetish was explain , I don't think it's really guild theme to lose it as SOI. It seems like there's a number of slots for skill sets that just need to be filled. The one thing in our SOI that doesn't make as much sense to me is stealing. Unless there's a future way to learn it , it doesn't seem to be in our SOI to be in town so to speak.
Reqs != SOI
>>actually I mentioned getting it enchanged for the small edge requirement for my own devious purposes
ORLY?
TG, TG, GL, et al.
"Disagreement with the fundamental plan at this point is akin to supporting Richard III vs the Tudors."
-Raesh
Reqs != SOI
>>actually I mentioned getting it enchanged for the small edge requirement for my own devious purposes
ORLY?
TG, TG, GL, et al.
"Disagreement with the fundamental plan at this point is akin to supporting Richard III vs the Tudors."
-Raesh
