Hello all,
Before I burn 4 slots learning grounding field (2 for lightning bolt as a prerequisite, 2 for grounding field), I want to make sure the spell is going to do what I'm hoping for. The only thing stopping me from hunting seordmaors and sky giants right now is that their lightning bolts knock me around unless I keep aether cloak up 24/7, and that gets old fast- stops me from training TM/using other cyclicals.
To confirm: does grounding field completely counter lightning bolts, so I can just keep that spell up and survive in there?
From elanthipedia, it sounds like it SHOULD, but figured I'd make sure before using all my spell slots on this idea.
CRAFTYTRILOBITE2
YOFIE
Re: Grounding Field vs. Lightning Bolt
03/13/2018 05:53 PM CDT
doesn't Lay Ward block incoming spells as well? might be an easier path.
Rehlyn
Well, see, there's the linchpin of why everything you're saying is wrong. There's the fulcrum. There's the centerpiece. There's the turkey on the Thanksgiving table.
Rehlyn
Well, see, there's the linchpin of why everything you're saying is wrong. There's the fulcrum. There's the centerpiece. There's the turkey on the Thanksgiving table.
HASTALUEGO
Re: Grounding Field vs. Lightning Bolt
03/13/2018 08:29 PM CDT
I want to say that because Lightning Bolt does both fire and electric, that one will be negated and the damage from the other element will be doubled, nixing the entire point. This was part of the problem with Grounding Field to begin with. That said, I'm not 100% sure and would have to test it.
FLINT-TIPPED
Re: Grounding Field vs. Lightning Bolt
03/14/2018 01:03 AM CDT
Word is Grounding Field kind of sucks because most/all damage has two facets and Grounding Field only protects against 1. Lay Ward would have much less duration but if your FE/scripting engine can keep it up for you or you don't mind recasting it every 2-10 minutes. Invoke Lay ward if you have a free spell scroll slot or study/memorize it if you have the slots for LW and an AP spell prereq.
https://elanthipedia.play.net/Main_Page
https://elanthipedia.play.net/Main_Page
DR-GREJUVA
Re: Grounding Field vs. Lightning Bolt
03/14/2018 03:27 AM CDT
>I want to say that because Lightning Bolt does both fire and electric, that one will be negated and the damage from the other element will be doubled, nixing the entire point.
>Word is Grounding Field kind of sucks because most/all damage has two facets and Grounding Field only protects against 1.
The spell actually has some logic that handles this. If the highest damage type of an incoming attack matches Grounding Field's selected type, all other elemental damage will be absorbed.
It is an excellent defense against Lightning Bolt. In my testing, it stopped LB consistently except for the few times when the RNG favored fire damage above electric. And in those rare cases, the increase to fire damage was much smaller than the nullified electric damage.
TLDR: Grounding Field is always beneficial if the incoming attack has your selected element as a component.
GM Grejuva
>Word is Grounding Field kind of sucks because most/all damage has two facets and Grounding Field only protects against 1.
The spell actually has some logic that handles this. If the highest damage type of an incoming attack matches Grounding Field's selected type, all other elemental damage will be absorbed.
It is an excellent defense against Lightning Bolt. In my testing, it stopped LB consistently except for the few times when the RNG favored fire damage above electric. And in those rare cases, the increase to fire damage was much smaller than the nullified electric damage.
TLDR: Grounding Field is always beneficial if the incoming attack has your selected element as a component.
GM Grejuva
HASTALUEGO
Re: Grounding Field vs. Lightning Bolt
03/14/2018 07:21 AM CDT
Thanks for the response, Grejuva!
JULIAN
JULIAN
Re: Grounding Field vs. Lightning Bolt
03/14/2018 07:33 AM CDT
Sometimes the game could do a better job of communicating nuances like that. Like, this is the DISCERN on Grounding Field:
The Grounding Field spell establishes an electrical field about the magician that redirects hostile energies harmlessly into Elanthia. When establishing a field it must be attuned to fire, cold or electrical sources specifically. While much trial and hardship has resulted in a stable barrier that will not interfere with the caster's own attacks be warned that the field will amplify energy sources it is not attuned to.
This is a non-battle spell that can be cast on a single target. Non-battle spells have significantly longer preparation times than battle spells. It can be cast without a target. It requires a minimum of thirty mana streams, and can expand to a maximum of one hundred mana streams woven into it. To begin to be able to cast this spell, you will need to reach the rank of a 50th degree adept. By the time you have mastered this spell, you will be ranked as a guru in your abilities as a caster. It requires the Warding skill to cast effectively. Before you can learn this spell, you must know Lightning Bolt and Ethereal Shield, and be circle 70. It will also cost two spell slots.
The spell requires at minimum 30 mana streams and you think you can reinforce it with 70 more, for a total of 100 streams.
Roundtime: 8 sec.
Elanthipedia's descrition is better. IMO we would really benefit from a relatively easy way to respec spells so that people can test things out.
Mazrian
The Grounding Field spell establishes an electrical field about the magician that redirects hostile energies harmlessly into Elanthia. When establishing a field it must be attuned to fire, cold or electrical sources specifically. While much trial and hardship has resulted in a stable barrier that will not interfere with the caster's own attacks be warned that the field will amplify energy sources it is not attuned to.
This is a non-battle spell that can be cast on a single target. Non-battle spells have significantly longer preparation times than battle spells. It can be cast without a target. It requires a minimum of thirty mana streams, and can expand to a maximum of one hundred mana streams woven into it. To begin to be able to cast this spell, you will need to reach the rank of a 50th degree adept. By the time you have mastered this spell, you will be ranked as a guru in your abilities as a caster. It requires the Warding skill to cast effectively. Before you can learn this spell, you must know Lightning Bolt and Ethereal Shield, and be circle 70. It will also cost two spell slots.
The spell requires at minimum 30 mana streams and you think you can reinforce it with 70 more, for a total of 100 streams.
Roundtime: 8 sec.
Elanthipedia's descrition is better. IMO we would really benefit from a relatively easy way to respec spells so that people can test things out.
Mazrian
TEVESHSZAT
Re: Grounding Field vs. Lightning Bolt
03/14/2018 10:32 AM CDT
>>IMO we would really benefit from a relatively easy way to respec spells so that people can test things out.
It would be neat if, every month (or whatever), players had access to a "guild spellbook" that let them temporarily memorize a spell they don't know yet (without requirements) for X amount of time in order to kick the tires. Maybe have it take up a scroll spell slot or something if it's too generous of an offering.
I'd suggest "let everyone buy a scroll spell from their spellbook once a month" but to avoid abuse I'm thinking of some way to make it bind to the player.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
It would be neat if, every month (or whatever), players had access to a "guild spellbook" that let them temporarily memorize a spell they don't know yet (without requirements) for X amount of time in order to kick the tires. Maybe have it take up a scroll spell slot or something if it's too generous of an offering.
I'd suggest "let everyone buy a scroll spell from their spellbook once a month" but to avoid abuse I'm thinking of some way to make it bind to the player.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
JULIAN
Re: Grounding Field vs. Lightning Bolt
03/14/2018 10:42 AM CDT
Or just let people respec spells at the library more than once a month. I don't think there's a need for a really complicated mechanic.
If our characters are going to develop over years and there are going to be more abilities than any one character can have access to there should also be a generous respec mechanism. It's not like anyone is going to spend a year training up another Warmage to try a different build after all.
Mazrian
If our characters are going to develop over years and there are going to be more abilities than any one character can have access to there should also be a generous respec mechanism. It's not like anyone is going to spend a year training up another Warmage to try a different build after all.
Mazrian
TEVESHSZAT
Re: Grounding Field vs. Lightning Bolt
03/14/2018 01:06 PM CDT
>>Or just let people respec spells at the library more than once a month. I don't think there's a need for a really complicated mechanic.
I guess it matters on if the goal is to let someone kick the tires to see if they like spell X or not, or if the goal is to let someone respec more often/robustly so they can shift up their entire spell tree.
I kinda like the idea of players making some kind of commitment to what they want their character to do (and let the concept of spell slots have weight/meat to them), but at the same time I also understand why someone doesn't want to be caught flat-footed because they were working toward learning X and it turns out that X isn't fun for them.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
I guess it matters on if the goal is to let someone kick the tires to see if they like spell X or not, or if the goal is to let someone respec more often/robustly so they can shift up their entire spell tree.
I kinda like the idea of players making some kind of commitment to what they want their character to do (and let the concept of spell slots have weight/meat to them), but at the same time I also understand why someone doesn't want to be caught flat-footed because they were working toward learning X and it turns out that X isn't fun for them.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
SARAGOS
Re: Grounding Field vs. Lightning Bolt
03/14/2018 04:40 PM CDT
> The spell actually has some logic that handles this. If the highest damage type of an incoming attack matches Grounding Field's selected type, all other elemental damage will be absorbed.
> It is an excellent defense against Lightning Bolt. In my testing, it stopped LB consistently except for the few times when the RNG favored fire damage above electric. And in those rare cases, the increase to fire damage was much smaller than the nullified electric damage.
> TLDR: Grounding Field is always beneficial if the incoming attack has your selected element as a component.
> GM Grejuva
Grejuva, has GF changed recently? It's been a while since I did the testing, but I had conversations with Raesh about this around the time he was working on the Barrier Review, and this is the direction he said he was going to go with it.
Definitively, I can state that when I tested last time I tested it, it did not negate the impact damage in any noticable way from fire shards from atik'ets or malchatas, to the point that I considered it to offer basically no increased survivability and was not worth the spell slots to help me hunt in those areas. This was a couple of years ago, probably, so it is possible something has changed since then. Is it possible it only blocks secondary damage against elemental damage and not physical damage? If so, I would consider that an oversight.
It's also worth noting that GF does not work on some special attacks, particularly wyverns' fire breath. I don't know if there's anything special enough about sky giants for this to matter. See: http://tinyheroes.com/forums/DragonRealms/Creatures%20of%20Elanthia/Bugs%20-%20Creatures/thread/1830795
- Saragos
> It is an excellent defense against Lightning Bolt. In my testing, it stopped LB consistently except for the few times when the RNG favored fire damage above electric. And in those rare cases, the increase to fire damage was much smaller than the nullified electric damage.
> TLDR: Grounding Field is always beneficial if the incoming attack has your selected element as a component.
> GM Grejuva
Grejuva, has GF changed recently? It's been a while since I did the testing, but I had conversations with Raesh about this around the time he was working on the Barrier Review, and this is the direction he said he was going to go with it.
Definitively, I can state that when I tested last time I tested it, it did not negate the impact damage in any noticable way from fire shards from atik'ets or malchatas, to the point that I considered it to offer basically no increased survivability and was not worth the spell slots to help me hunt in those areas. This was a couple of years ago, probably, so it is possible something has changed since then. Is it possible it only blocks secondary damage against elemental damage and not physical damage? If so, I would consider that an oversight.
It's also worth noting that GF does not work on some special attacks, particularly wyverns' fire breath. I don't know if there's anything special enough about sky giants for this to matter. See: http://tinyheroes.com/forums/DragonRealms/Creatures%20of%20Elanthia/Bugs%20-%20Creatures/thread/1830795
- Saragos
TEVESHSZAT
Re: Grounding Field vs. Lightning Bolt
03/14/2018 04:56 PM CDT
>>Definitively, I can state that when I tested last time I tested it, it did not negate the impact damage in any noticable way from fire shards from atik'ets or malchatas, to the point that I considered it to offer basically no increased survivability and was not worth the spell slots to help me hunt in those areas.
>>Is it possible it only blocks secondary damage against elemental damage and not physical damage?
I could be misreading this thread, but I think G explicitly said it only blocks secondary elemental damage, not physical damage. In other words, it's intended that you'll still get harmed by impact/puncture/slice damage.
>>It's also worth noting that GF does not work on some special attacks, particularly wyverns' fire breath. I don't know if there's anything special enough about sky giants for this to matter.
Not a GM-ologist, but I'd hazard to guess that the Wyvern "fire breath" attack, being a special attack, is either not "really" fire damage, or special attacks don't always get properly checked against barrier mechanics. Sky Giants cast spells through the spell system, which does get checked against barriers like this, so if you have things set up properly it should be properly blocked.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
>>Is it possible it only blocks secondary damage against elemental damage and not physical damage?
I could be misreading this thread, but I think G explicitly said it only blocks secondary elemental damage, not physical damage. In other words, it's intended that you'll still get harmed by impact/puncture/slice damage.
>>It's also worth noting that GF does not work on some special attacks, particularly wyverns' fire breath. I don't know if there's anything special enough about sky giants for this to matter.
Not a GM-ologist, but I'd hazard to guess that the Wyvern "fire breath" attack, being a special attack, is either not "really" fire damage, or special attacks don't always get properly checked against barrier mechanics. Sky Giants cast spells through the spell system, which does get checked against barriers like this, so if you have things set up properly it should be properly blocked.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
SARAGOS
Re: Grounding Field vs. Lightning Bolt
03/14/2018 05:19 PM CDT
>>Is it possible it only blocks secondary damage against elemental damage and not physical damage?
> I could be misreading this thread, but I think G explicitly said it only blocks secondary elemental damage, not physical damage. In other words, it's intended that you'll still get harmed by impact/puncture/slice damage.
Yeah, that's the way I read it too, but I wanted to be certain there wasn't a loose usage of the word, "element". I know it was stated that it's always better to have GF up, but honestly, that doesn't mean it isn't in dire need of work.
As a WM, would I recommend spending slots to use GF to hunt in an area that you would have trouble with otherwise? No. Your other options, such as AC and VoI are superior, as they can stop the attack entirely. There's also LW.
As a non-WM, would I recommend acquiring a scroll to use GF to hunt in an area that you would have trouble with otherwise? No. Lay Ward is superior, even if your guild has no native magical barrier.
The only real niche, as written, that I can see for it is in a situation where you can't afford the mana to keep VoI or LW up, and don't want to have AC up. The drawback makes it not terribly useful in PvP, since anyone who will be leaning on TM against you probably has options. The issue is that every TM spell has two damage components. Lightning is usually fire and electricity, but fire tends to rely on fire + a physical. A spell that already plays favorites and defends you against only one element at the expense of others seems pretty shabby if it's never going to be able to properly protect you from some elements.
If someone has a different view of the spell, I'm willing to listen. But I just don't see a good niche for it.
- Saragos
> I could be misreading this thread, but I think G explicitly said it only blocks secondary elemental damage, not physical damage. In other words, it's intended that you'll still get harmed by impact/puncture/slice damage.
Yeah, that's the way I read it too, but I wanted to be certain there wasn't a loose usage of the word, "element". I know it was stated that it's always better to have GF up, but honestly, that doesn't mean it isn't in dire need of work.
As a WM, would I recommend spending slots to use GF to hunt in an area that you would have trouble with otherwise? No. Your other options, such as AC and VoI are superior, as they can stop the attack entirely. There's also LW.
As a non-WM, would I recommend acquiring a scroll to use GF to hunt in an area that you would have trouble with otherwise? No. Lay Ward is superior, even if your guild has no native magical barrier.
The only real niche, as written, that I can see for it is in a situation where you can't afford the mana to keep VoI or LW up, and don't want to have AC up. The drawback makes it not terribly useful in PvP, since anyone who will be leaning on TM against you probably has options. The issue is that every TM spell has two damage components. Lightning is usually fire and electricity, but fire tends to rely on fire + a physical. A spell that already plays favorites and defends you against only one element at the expense of others seems pretty shabby if it's never going to be able to properly protect you from some elements.
If someone has a different view of the spell, I'm willing to listen. But I just don't see a good niche for it.
- Saragos
DR-GREJUVA
Re: Grounding Field vs. Lightning Bolt
03/14/2018 07:27 PM CDT
>>Grejuva, has GF changed recently?
Not really.
>>Not a GM-ologist, but I'd hazard to guess that the Wyvern "fire breath" attack, being a special attack, is either not "really" fire damage, or special attacks don't always get properly checked against barrier mechanics.
Probably the former. Please BUG such cases.
>As a WM, would I recommend spending slots to use GF to hunt in an area that you would have trouble with otherwise? No. Your other options, such as AC and VoI are superior, as they can stop the attack entirely. There's also LW.
>As a non-WM, would I recommend acquiring a scroll to use GF to hunt in an area that you would have trouble with otherwise? No. Lay Ward is superior, even if your guild has no native magical barrier.
Setting aside Lay Ward, which is a symptom of creature magic being terribly weak... Yes, Warrior Mages have amazing TM defense even without Grounding Field. Where GF could still shine are non-spell damage sources such as elemental weapons and flares. Not many creatures deal elemental damage with their regular attacks yet, but I try to use it where appropriate -- the North Wind banshees for example.
>>The drawback makes it not terribly useful in PvP, since anyone who will be leaning on TM against you probably has options.
Well, do you think the spell would be balanced without this drawback?
>>The issue is that every TM spell has two damage components. Lightning is usually fire and electricity, but fire tends to rely on fire + a physical.
Even so, assuming equally weighted damage types, we're talking about a non-ablative ~50% damage reduction there.
GM Grejuva
Not really.
>>Not a GM-ologist, but I'd hazard to guess that the Wyvern "fire breath" attack, being a special attack, is either not "really" fire damage, or special attacks don't always get properly checked against barrier mechanics.
Probably the former. Please BUG such cases.
>As a WM, would I recommend spending slots to use GF to hunt in an area that you would have trouble with otherwise? No. Your other options, such as AC and VoI are superior, as they can stop the attack entirely. There's also LW.
>As a non-WM, would I recommend acquiring a scroll to use GF to hunt in an area that you would have trouble with otherwise? No. Lay Ward is superior, even if your guild has no native magical barrier.
Setting aside Lay Ward, which is a symptom of creature magic being terribly weak... Yes, Warrior Mages have amazing TM defense even without Grounding Field. Where GF could still shine are non-spell damage sources such as elemental weapons and flares. Not many creatures deal elemental damage with their regular attacks yet, but I try to use it where appropriate -- the North Wind banshees for example.
>>The drawback makes it not terribly useful in PvP, since anyone who will be leaning on TM against you probably has options.
Well, do you think the spell would be balanced without this drawback?
>>The issue is that every TM spell has two damage components. Lightning is usually fire and electricity, but fire tends to rely on fire + a physical.
Even so, assuming equally weighted damage types, we're talking about a non-ablative ~50% damage reduction there.
GM Grejuva
JULIAN
Re: Grounding Field vs. Lightning Bolt
03/14/2018 07:43 PM CDT
Grounding Field is hilariously good for fighting Arthelun Cabalists.
Mazrian
Mazrian
SARAGOS
Re: Grounding Field vs. Lightning Bolt
03/24/2018 01:58 AM CDT
BTW, sorry for taking a while to respond.
> Setting aside Lay Ward, which is a symptom of creature magic being terribly weak... Yes, Warrior Mages have amazing TM defense even without Grounding Field. Where GF could still shine are non-spell damage sources such as elemental weapons and flares. Not many creatures deal elemental damage with their regular attacks yet, but I try to use it where appropriate -- the North Wind banshees for example.
This is a cool idea. I'd like to see more critters like this, but one of the problems we have in the game currently is that there is no reward for hunting hard critters. As I've mentioned before, I'd like to see a tier system of exp rewards based on how annoying the area is to hunt in. TM, special, attacks, mazes, armor/damage resistances, spellcasting, all of these things should increase the experience rewards. Possibly even using similar logic to the RPA system. Something like:
>assess
You think that due to the difficulty of this area, you would learn moderately faster than normal.
Ok, back to GF.
>>The drawback makes it not terribly useful in PvP, since anyone who will be leaning on TM against you probably has options.
> Well, do you think the spell would be balanced without this drawback?
What I was pointing out there was that it doesn't even have a niche in PvP. IMO, this needs to be a PvE primary spell in order to work.
The main issue I have with the spell is that it's ineffective against some spells in a counter-intuitive way that doesn't make any sense unless you study elanthipedia. Making you immune to an element at the expense of others makes sense. So, apparently it does this well against lightning. Ok, so it should work against fire. Oh, wait, except the fire spells all have a physical component, so you still take damage. And fire spells are all half impact because...?
So, let me turn the question back on you: Would GF be unbalanced if it protected as well against Fire Shards when attuned to fire as it does Lightning Bolt when attuned to electricity? If the issue is that a spell shouldn't protect entirely from the damage, then why does it do so against energy-only attacks? Also, AC and VoI would like a word. If the issue is that it's too mana-efficient... well, AC is far more mana efficient if you're not training TM, and GF is already capped at 10 minutes for being a battle spell If you're worried about the defense being too widely available, the battle spell aspect puts the spell out of the reach except all but the highest non-magic-primes anyway. Or make it signature, if it's that big a deal.
TLDR: Critters that cast spells are already avoided, if possible by the players. A GF that's equally effective against all elements is more fun and intuitive, and potentially opens up suboptimal hunting areas for use. I don't think we'd be looking at something game-breaking.
- Saragos
> Setting aside Lay Ward, which is a symptom of creature magic being terribly weak... Yes, Warrior Mages have amazing TM defense even without Grounding Field. Where GF could still shine are non-spell damage sources such as elemental weapons and flares. Not many creatures deal elemental damage with their regular attacks yet, but I try to use it where appropriate -- the North Wind banshees for example.
This is a cool idea. I'd like to see more critters like this, but one of the problems we have in the game currently is that there is no reward for hunting hard critters. As I've mentioned before, I'd like to see a tier system of exp rewards based on how annoying the area is to hunt in. TM, special, attacks, mazes, armor/damage resistances, spellcasting, all of these things should increase the experience rewards. Possibly even using similar logic to the RPA system. Something like:
>assess
You think that due to the difficulty of this area, you would learn moderately faster than normal.
Ok, back to GF.
>>The drawback makes it not terribly useful in PvP, since anyone who will be leaning on TM against you probably has options.
> Well, do you think the spell would be balanced without this drawback?
What I was pointing out there was that it doesn't even have a niche in PvP. IMO, this needs to be a PvE primary spell in order to work.
The main issue I have with the spell is that it's ineffective against some spells in a counter-intuitive way that doesn't make any sense unless you study elanthipedia. Making you immune to an element at the expense of others makes sense. So, apparently it does this well against lightning. Ok, so it should work against fire. Oh, wait, except the fire spells all have a physical component, so you still take damage. And fire spells are all half impact because...?
So, let me turn the question back on you: Would GF be unbalanced if it protected as well against Fire Shards when attuned to fire as it does Lightning Bolt when attuned to electricity? If the issue is that a spell shouldn't protect entirely from the damage, then why does it do so against energy-only attacks? Also, AC and VoI would like a word. If the issue is that it's too mana-efficient... well, AC is far more mana efficient if you're not training TM, and GF is already capped at 10 minutes for being a battle spell If you're worried about the defense being too widely available, the battle spell aspect puts the spell out of the reach except all but the highest non-magic-primes anyway. Or make it signature, if it's that big a deal.
TLDR: Critters that cast spells are already avoided, if possible by the players. A GF that's equally effective against all elements is more fun and intuitive, and potentially opens up suboptimal hunting areas for use. I don't think we'd be looking at something game-breaking.
- Saragos
BINU
Re: Grounding Field vs. Lightning Bolt
04/20/2018 02:19 AM CDT
Another place where GF really shines is against Drogorian Stormriders and other things that are with it which invade before HE.
Without it, they're extremely hard to deal with. At least 2 HE fests back that was the case for me. GF allowed me to kill them when they were otherwise killing most everyone.
Without it, they're extremely hard to deal with. At least 2 HE fests back that was the case for me. GF allowed me to kill them when they were otherwise killing most everyone.
