I'll trade you my ability to raise others for your familiars and their neat perks.

>I'll trade you my ability to raise others for your familiars and their neat perks.

I'll give you my bear for your self raise ability.

Frosts

Double-post for insipid comment:

Is AC giving you dark, pupilless eyes still impossible without Features N.whatever?

The effect on novices was priceless D:

---

"Magic has rules and so does posting on these forums." -Annwyl

<<I'll give you my bear for your self raise ability.>>

We could go back and forth on this, but the point is that everyone has nice things other people want, Warrior Mages included. Do not be so quick to discount them.

I am not completely sure I would not take that trade, for what it is worth. Self-rez is not terribly useful unless you plan on dying a lot.

>>That is where you are wrong, they have ability which make their weapon hit harder and their body to be able to withstand more damage.

Aka buffs centered around combat:

>>as well as a powerful suite of buff spells centered around combat both magical and weaponized.

---

TG, TG, GL, et al.
Also: Moo.

FAM DRAGGING not GAM DRAFFING....stupid blackberry and old age

C.M

>>How about some Fear v or Power v disablers...

It was my understanding that Fear/Power were tailored around non-magical attacks.

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

>>Is frost scythe still going to be around? I did not see it listed. I would like an electrical based weapon damage spell also if that is possible.

>>You may have noticed that the spells that create weapons are absent, but do not fear. They will still exist, through a system which we are not quite ready to elaborate on.

>>Chain Lightning:
>>An esoteric Electric Targeted spell. It will strike everything in the area (or everything engaged to you, whichever you prefer) once. It can be >>generally targeted without need for a specific target.

This is possibly very minor in the Grand Scheme of things, but where is the "chain" in this spell now? If multiple lightning bolts are cast but only strike once, isn't the spell more like "Multiple Lightning Bolt" or something similar? Could such a functionality be added to the already-existing LB at the cost of the no-shield advantage or additional slots?

What is the rationale for deciding to strike targets with CL in an AoE single-attack, rather than a multi-attack? I rather like the number of attacks that CL offers at high levels of mana, and wouldn't mind keeping them as the more accurate but less damaging sort proposed in the basic M3 TM philosophy. It seems more true to the theme of the spell (which is to me, zomg lightning everywhere, hard to dodge) but not focused enough to devastate like a single, powerful bolt.

Other thoughts... (this turned out to be much longer than I thought, apologies for my longwinded post).

Mark of Arhat: I would adore this spell as an elemental damage booster - or a mixture of that and fire damage over time, as was proposed by another user earlier in the thread.

Fire Rain: I only just picked up this spell and enjoy it the way it is. If it had to change though, option 2 seems to suggest that the caster would no longer be a target while losing none of the punch. I can't tell enough from the description to make out the other differences. As a cyclic spell that attacks targets around you, would it follow a caster, like some sort of deadly, unnatural Raincloud For Adults?

Y'ntrel Sechra: I cry. I would feel a whole lot better about my decision to train hundreds of backtrained HP ranks if I understood a little better how combat 3.0 is going to keep the armor as a viable choice. Since it was mentioned we shouldn't stop training it (and understanding that this is supposed to be a response to a spell list) is there any chance at all of shedding some light on how armor's combat 3.0 role will keep Heavy Plate as a reasonable Warrior Mage armor? Are we sacrificing protection or absorbtion somehow? Is hinderance less important to defending (i.e. does it affect defenses less, or specific defenses less?) As the "second layer" of protection that is taking on the approximate role that parry or shield seem to now, does armor become more or less important in deflecting attacks entirely? So on, so forth. YS in 3.0 under our current defense model would seem next to useless, so any extra information you can give would be very helpful.

Elemental Transformations seem inadequately implemented with only two elements. I would enjoy to see at least one theme for the four foundational elements (ignoring Aether and Electricity for now). Off-the-top-of-the-head suggestions... Roll water breathing, +swimming and +cold damage resistance into a water or ice form? Affinity for air magic, the ranged defense aspect of Tailwind and adjustment to armor hinderance into a air form? I suppose most of those examples are wishful thinking, but it seems as though there's some increased redundancy now to encourage specialization in some areas of the spellbooks. The Transformations have the potential to offer some pretty niche and interesting setups.

Chill Geyser/spike/basic or introductory TM spells by element: This seems contrary to the goal of reducing redundancy, but I understand the points made in prior posts. I take a bit of exception to Sun Lance though. It seems redundant in its own spellbook, next to Fire Shard. Do you intend for one to be single-shot and one to be multi-shot, and for that to be the defining difference between the two for spell choice? Do any of the intro TM spells have any unqiue features that would interest a mage, other than "Oh hey a basic spell that hurts things with an elemental flavor..." or are they serving as necessary pre-requisites for better spells? Will these spells be obsolete at the end of a spellbook, when a mage knows better damaging spells? I ask mainly because I understand that eliminating spell obsolesence was also a goal of the new system.

Familiar Combat: Lots of potential. It seems to steal a bit away from what Necromancers have as a (currently) unique ability in the form of CFB and QTE, but when they get their Risen in 2040 all balance will be restored. Much approved, much love, thank you so much. Is there any chance of a higher-circle tier of familiars now to better take advantage of this kind of familiar use as a niche focus/reduced utility?

Ignite: Hee! Ice or electricity variants for spellslots, pretty please! If Shockwave can magically be firey all of a sudden, why not? Having each elemental damage type represented would give the spell a world of appeal to me, and worth the cost.

Dragon's Breath/Blufmor Garaen: Is the tradeoff now that DB has one attack in exchange for high power and accuracy, and BG is weaker but variable and multiple?

I'll put a lid on it there. Thank you for your hard work so far, and I'm looking forward to playing with some of the new concepts here.

Are Sun Lance and Fire Shard going to have different physical damage spreads? One slice-heavy and their other piercing-heavy?

---

"Magic has rules and so does posting on these forums." -Annwyl

>>Would you like to reduce Chain Lightning's maximum damage potential per target in return for extra accuracy in letting it strike targets multiple >>times? That's what you're asking me for. Please read the section on multi-strike spells versus single-strike ones, the idea is that they're both >>about equal to each other in desirability. Single-Strike is for damage, multi-strike sacrifices damage for accuracy.

I think I envisioned the spell differently in my mind (multiple bolts firing from a source simultaneously and striking different targets multiple times, rather than one bolt that jumps around). How you describe it, it makes a bit more sense.

I have read the section you're referencing - it's what prompted me to write the first post.... Originally, I wanted CL to be less damaging per bolt than the single strike, because the total number of bolts against each target would add up to be something greater (much like it seems to work in in game now, for me). The accuracy boost from being multi-strike is plainly worth it in that case. Thinking on it a bit, you probably are trying to tell me that even with the extra strikes and accuracy, the spell would overall do less damage per target, per cast than the one proposed.

Gotta think on it now, not sure which flavor I'd prefer. Massive AoE single-shot damage could be gleaned from a few books.


Thank you for your fast response.

---

"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."

You would pick a warrior mage because you want to advance in your guild through staying in combat and you like magic more than yelling at things.

>>As a new player, why would I pick a Warrior Mage?

They've said that Warrior Mages will have the largest arsenal of spell attacks, that is your specialty.

Assuming idential skills/stats and using a single strike Targeted Magic spell, while a Warrior Mage may not do more damage than a Moon Mage or Cleric, the Warrior Mage will have access to a broader range of attacks spanning a bulk of the elemental damage types, the physical damage types, the vs stat contests and inflicted status effects.

tl:dr version - The Warrior Mage is designed so that if you know your opponent's weakness, whatever that weakness is you can exploit it via magical assault.

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

aaahh Beveragek, that explains it a bit better, thank you, I was struggling to get my head around it clearly, but your summary makes it easier, thank you.

As an extra note, don't take away my ball lightning!! I use that to train my cambrinth!

Somni

>With the exception of Elemental Transformations, I am trying to hold us to describing conventional Warrior Mage spells as literal elemental manifestations. Elemental spells conjuring something physical (within Elanthia's loose definition of physics) without delving into symbolic or mystic-minded effects. In that model, it's very hard to conceive of a conventional Warrior Mage mental buff.

As such, WM magic has an inherent limitation that is not found in the other magic types. As such, in the "rob peter to pay paul" model, shouldn't WM magic have an inherent advantage?

Damage has never really been a big deal anyways, not sure what the problem is there because i'm pretty sure even currently moon mages have spells that do more damage then war mage ones. It's hard to notice when both insta kill everything at level with TM. I don't think that's a WM or MM problem and I believe the combat changes are supposed to be addressing those isssues.

>>As such, WM magic has an inherent limitation that is not found in the other magic types.

>I think you may want to do more research on the other magic types.

Fair enough, but if you mean the devotion and the moons/sun/star interaction with clerics and moonies, those are spell limitations.

What I meant is that WM magic is limited to those effects that can be physically manifested, a specific limitation that seems to be limiting what a WM spell could do.

While clerics are limited by what the gods can do? And moonies are limited to what imaginary forces provided by the heavens can do? Neither of these seem to offer any limitation on what a cleric or moonie spell could do.

Speaking of weaknesses (and double-posting because I can't shut up apparently)...

If Fist of Stone is going the way of Stone spike, Ice Patch no longer snaps necks, and Paeldryth's is pure targeted utility...

...is there going to be an overall loss of Impact damage sources here? The spell selection looks piercing-heavy now.

---

"Magic has rules and so does posting on these forums." -Annwyl

>If Fist of Stone is going the way of Stone spike, Ice Patch no longer snaps necks, and Paeldryth's is pure targeted utility...

>...is there going to be an overall loss of Impact damage sources here? The spell selection looks piercing-heavy now.

The water TM spell will actually be impact heavy.

-Z

>Uhhh, alot of moon mage spells cannot even be cast unless there are moons up, take burn for instance, night and no moons = no burn. IOE without ingredients, contingency, sls during the day and more.

No, I get this, but these are limitations of the spell - like vertigo doesn't affect undead, or YS failing in water, etc...

What I mean is that WM magic spell design seems to have been assigned a limitation that isn't present for the other magic types. But who knows, perhaps there are similar limitations to spell design for the other magic types.