>If their OF is only 2/3 of my TM, they are useless to me outside of killing characters and critters that pose no threat to me whatsoever. If I'm rocking 700+ defenses (to go with my 700 target), I really don't need a 450 OF GS.

This.. my current situation is when I go in to train at level for my defensive skills is that I have to hog spawn due to the fact that my avenger can't touch what I train with. It's disappointing to think that in magic 3.0 my situation won't change. We're not asking to be death dealing machines versus non constructs, but being able to hunt outside our box based on how hard we train TM sounded awful nice.

I don't see any scenario where the GS is useful for me. Like Purehand said, I'm not going to use it when I'm training TM at 700 and it's whiffing at 450.

>My utility of guardian spirits is ENTIRELY for offense in non-construct situations.

Agree.

Summon power is and will be based on TM, this is completely non-negotiable even though I know it's not what you'll want to hear. Pretty much if you have at-level every skill, the GS is going to be worthless for killing at that level (without serious debuffs/buffs), and that's by mandated design.

If you went on the purely defensive model where it can't attack at all I might be mildly swayed, but TM = summon power. The GS will train TM during use though, although not as well as using damage spells (like Necro stuff)

On other notes, Area Disablers will almost always have a 'cast engaged' option you can utilize in situations where you don't want to hit the whole room (this will not be true for Necromancers)

-Z

Empaths functionally had two development choices a while back. One of them was to become a high pet class with a medley of offensive options. The other was to get construct hunting. We went the latter route in development, so pet options got closed off.

I told Melete that basically avengers were going to be primarily defensive no matter what, but that there was a way to have 'bad' offensive capabilities which is why we're asking you which of the options you prefer.

You can have

- Bad offense, good defense.
- No offense, great defense.
- Bad offense, great defense, but cyclic.

But I do want to be clear that Melete isn't to blame for the lack of other options.

-Z

>You can have
>- Bad offense, good defense.
>- No offense, great defense.
>- Bad offense, great defense, but cyclic.

Wow... I'm with Purehand on the cyclic part. I don't think defense is something any Empath is lacking, in skill or in other spells. GS is already limited by attack type, there's no need to intentionally nerf it into uselessness when utilizing that one attack.

A reduction in ability is fine, but 2/3 is a bit overboard (though I don't know where than number came from). My biggest issue with a 2/3 is that seems likes it's way above global caps. Even if it were a global cap debuff, it would still be somewhat usable at level, but if it's above that... What's the point of a global cap?


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

I really wouldn't mind construct hunting so much if it didn't mean that there would be work in the monster ladder to be worthwhile.

Right now there is a decent single path "rope" that will lead all empaths who want to hunt to move to Muspar'i (creating an Empath M'riss). I know Muspar'i deserves to have more people, but is this really the way?

This just sounds like it will either lead to Empaths begging for more constructs constantly (like non-empaths do about dillos) or people just giving up and resorting to under-hunting with guardian spirit (which will mean they can't use AD and won't really learn anything).

In that case, my vote definitely goes to the Cyclic version.


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

>>If 400 TM = 400 OF/ 400 Def for the GS in the cyclic model, then that would definitely get my vote between the three.

I'm not sure off hand if we're going for a literally 1:1 conversion between TM and combat pet skill. So I'm only comfortable saying "if it's Cyclic, it'll be on par. If it's not, it'll be about 2/3rds that."

>>Any concensus on how long of a duration we could get out of our Avenger?

For non-Cyclic? Hadn't really thought about it. It's an exceptional spell, so it'd probably wind up Battle (a handful of minutes, but very quick to cast) or Ritual (around an hour, but extremely slow to cast). I'd lean toward it being a Battle spell as more faithful to the intention.

-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

If it is a choice of a battle spell vs a cyclic, I think I'd prefer Cyclic (option 3). While this will limit the use of other cyclic combat buffs, I like the longer duration and more power from this particular GS combat buff. It would also open up the critter latter a bit more since the other combat buffs and attacks can only be used against constructs.


Yamcer

---

"You know, while I understand the importance of seeing the (personal) validity in other's arguments, it's impossible for me to believe fully that others are correct. If their argument was correct, I'd change mine." - My GF

>For non-Cyclic?

No, for cyclic, supposing you have raw channeling. I'm wondering how thirsty this spell is going to be.


~ Purehand

>collect coin
You manage to collect a pile of coin.
Roundtime: 30 sec.

... Jackpot.

While I know we aren't supposed to be comparing other guilds, I've seen a few things from red names suggesting things there-in.

As such:

Necromancers are supposed to have the combat, offensive pets. Not Warrior Mages, not Clerics, and Empaths not being combative don't.

For my own feel, I'd like to see a GS with some offensive, and defensive, and enough protection that it could be a get out of combat death card.

Under new Combat, Magic, and what not I'm hoping the GS will give us an ace if we learn how to use it right.

_____________________________________
Victory Over Lyras, on the 397th year and 156 days since the Victory of Lanival the Redeemer.

Based on the clarifications I think that option (3) is definitely sounding like the best.

Meadbh

The stress from losing ranks, TDPs and now the awesomeness of my avengers (who I call Mickey even if they insist their names are not Mickey) is making all the Just For Men fall out of my hair.

I'm not really into constructs. While I understand the combat features of DR is the main deal, it has never really appealed to me. I have never been able to master all the combat commands and consume whiskey at the same time. And strangely, directly causing harm to constructs makes me feel dirty somehow. I guess that is a result of playing an empath for over a decade.

I really enjoy sending my Mickeys to do battle while I help them out casting Leth and Paralysis. Don't know why that feels okay but it does.

I enjoy having boxes and skins to occupy my time while teaching and healing. I would hate to lose the ability to get them on my own.

I really hate held mana spells and find them very annoying. Regernerate and AD are not fun spells for me. I hate not being able to use other spells while holding mana for the current one.

I have never found a GS's guarding ability to be of any use whatsoever.

By process of elimination, while not thrilled, I would pick option #1 over #2 and #3.


- The now gray player of Illcram

---

Please rephrase that command.

I believe Melete hinted that the shock rewrite will give us the ability to retaliate to PC attacks without tanking our abilities forever.

They confirmed this when they first mentioned TM being used for offensive pets. It's been so long ago now that I can't find the post, but it was posted in the empath folders around the time that the necro guild came out.

It's the way that necro zombies work currently, as well. When the zombie attacks, you learn bits of TM.

>>Also, Empaths are Survival and Magic Secondary. There is no reason why an Empath could not keep his/her Targeted Magic on par with Evasion after the change is made. Being as Armor and Weapons are Tertiary, the Guardian Spirit's Offense will actually outpace the Empaths defense theoretically. This is assuming an Empath picks up the Guardian Spirit spell near the beginning of his/her career.<<

Not true. Evasion will ALWAYS outpace TM. If you're in combat at all and have one critter on you, then you are learning Evasion. You are not always casting Paralyze in order to learn TM. Besides learning Parry, Shield, armors, varying weapons, and casting buff spells like SOP, AGS, MAF, GOL, Refresh, Awaken, Blood Staunch, Tranquility, there's a lot of time spent in combat that is not used to further TM skill.

By focusing strictly on TM, I have been able to bring it to within 80 ranks of my Evasion, and within about 40 ranks of my tertiary defenses like Shield, Parry, and Leather, but it moves very slowly. I'm not sure I'll ever bring it up to par with Evasion unless I spend all non combat time listening to TM classes.




________________________________________

NMUs are not people. -GM Armifer

Which way are the GMs leaning in the Guardian Spirit debate: option 1 (nerfed non-cyclic), option 2 (no offense), or option 3 (cyclic)?

---

"PHA = Healer Union. They charge for healing based on your injuries. We will now pause while everyone gives their opinion on this." -- Teilan

Are there any updates on which model will be used for avengers: option 1 (nerfed non-cyclic), option 2 (no offense), or option 3 (cyclic)?

---

"PHA = Healer Union. They charge for healing based on your injuries. We will now pause while everyone gives their opinion on this." -- Teilan

99% of players responded with the cyclic option once they understood how each option would work. Hopefully the GMs take the results of that poll and run with it. The other two options weren't particularly useful.

-Evran

Gay, geeky, and a little bit cheeky.

>>Going with cyclic unless some compelling reason not to falls on me from on high.

::looks up, then pulls out a teeny-weeny umbrella!::


Sometimes the key to happiness is not assuming it is locked in the first place- Ziggy

A journey of a thousand SMILES begins with a single step- Ziggy

<<forgive my ignorance, but cyclic is 3.0 talk for having to constantly recast it right?>>

For cycllic think bard enchantes. One up at a time and they take up a chunk of attunement.

Yamcer

---

"You know, while I understand the importance of seeing the (personal) validity in other's arguments, it's impossible for me to believe fully that others are correct. If their argument was correct, I'd change mine." - My GF