>>He (she?) was discussing thematic limitations on what spells can achieve, not restrictions on the use of spells.

I would call moon magic spells failling due to lack of a moon a thematic limitaion on what the sepll can achieve. I cannot, for instance, create a shield of moonlight, if there is no moon!

---

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

> There is a difference between the restrictions on a spell's use and the effect which a spell can achieve under appropriate circumstances.

Let me add that you could make the argument that weakness in one of these areas can make up for strength in another: some guilds have more restrictions the effects they can achieve, other guilds have more restrictions on the use of their spells, and there's nothing wrong with this state of affairs. In fact, this is an argument I agree with. But you should recognize that these are two different forms of limitations.

I'm waiting to see how long that quote will continue to get thrown around to generate hysteria absent of the line that immediately followed it.

-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

> I lost track of whatever quote you're referencing. =(

WM spells are restricted to physical manifestations of the elements. Except Hylomorphic Sorcery, which isn't.

>I'm waiting to see how long that quote will continue to get thrown around to generate hysteria absent of the line that immediately followed it.

That makes not practicing sorcery sound analogous to being a shocked Empath.

---

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

Yes. 100% reliant.

/sarcasm




"The Necromancers are outcasts and not the funny "shade and water" kind."

>>Because your gameplay is wholly dependent on gaining access to a stat buff you never had to begin with?<<

Boosting mentals just seems like a natural thing for any magic using guild to be able to do.

If all magic has to run through the same four stats to determine success and power and the WM experience is primarily about magic it seems almost required that they be able to buff some or all of those stats. To not have mental buffs as a magic user seems the same to me as to not have hiding buffs as a Thief. Whether Elemental magic is thematically tractable in the right ways seems secondary to me.

I don't really care if the delivery system is Sorcery or something else. It just seems like a key capability to me.

>Just a suggestion, since i'm assuming that hiding while engulfed in flames will still be almost impossible would it make sense to add in a perception boost as well to compensate?

Mord, given that earth sense is not going to be a straight perception buff, I think its safe to say that WMs won't be getting a perception buff (without sorcery) - save those CV runes. If there is a penalty to hiding and there is compensation for that, my guess is that its in the strength of the stated buffs. Or potentially compensated for in the spell slot cost, e.g. agility buff and melee buff costs three, subtract one for the hiding debuff, gives the spell a two slot cost.

>>How practical is it in training if you can't remove the mantle of flames by shockwaving it? Not very unless you have resolved yourself to not training stealths.


I don't agree or disagree with the other points, but its been stated a few times we're all getting a spell to remove our own buffs at will. Won't need to shockwave it off at that point.


Samsaren Remlane
I will defend to your death, your right, to my opinion.

>>Not a spell, we're getting a pathway to do it. Since we don't know how all that will work i guess i shouldn't speculate on it. I would imagine not being able to use different pathways at will.

AP - Analogous Pattern, not a pathway, as then all guilds wouldn't have access to it.

---

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

I'm rather confident we're getting an Analogous Pattern spell that removes our own spells, not a Pathway thingy. I'm hoping that PAthways work out to be something that add some hefty flare to the Warrior Mage toolbox, its certainly a place for some neat stuff for you guys.


Samsaren Remlane
I will defend to your death, your right, to my opinion.

Why does MAF suck? I thought it wasn't changing?

---

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

I mean MOF, obviously we'd be talking about a WM spell.

Sorry it's been a rough morning.

>>It's picking up the agility boost from SUF. I dont think that makes it "suck" exactly, but there it is.

It sucks because you're taking away the agility boost from a much less restrictive spell in SUF and giving it to MoF which you cannot hide in and on top of that you lose the ability to do damage with shockwave while MOF is on.

I think it would make more sense to give it the parry bonus and not the agility bonus since obviously MOF will only be useful in melee situations. Or maybe a perception buff?

>>Mantle of Flame:

MoF. (As Mord corrected).

---

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

>I'm just thinking about what situation would i ever use this MAF. Is the agility bonus worth no hiding? No, not by a long shot.

OK but, although it makes sense, we don't really know that MAF will debuff hiding.

>How practical is it in training if you can't remove the mantle of flames by shockwaving it? Not very unless you have resolved yourself to not training stealths.

I can't speak to the practicallity, but I think its been stated that there will be an analogous pattern spell that will dispell any of our self cast spells.

>I guess that could be the forced diversification we're facing and that spell would just not be something a stealth WM would get.

This might be the case.

>It's just kinda lame that our best buff combo of SW/SUF has lost the agility bonus and we've gained nothing in return by moving that bonus to MAF.

>It would make more sense to keep agility on SUF, remove the parry bonus from SUF and give that to MAF since the melee boost and parry boost seem perfect for each other.

I'd also tend to think that the agility buff would best be moved out of MAF, but for slightly differet reasons. If agility will still be involved in box skills, it wouldn't make much sense to light yourself on fire to open a box. (disclosure: doesn't matter to me one way or the other since my WM doesn't open boxes).

That being said, given the "physical manifestation" idea, its hard to imagine how SUF would improve the casters innate agility. Balance improvement (and potentially any action that produces movement of the caster's center of gravity) could be imaged as something like the mage moving the earth below his/her feet when necessary to compensate for leaning/moving/dodging actions that tend to throw one off the center of gravity. Indeed, to me it seems that under the current model of WM magic, the functionality of SUF and SW could be directly exchanged, but with SUF keeping the balance buff, and still keep within the theme.

As a side note, I think the idea is that the SUF/SW combo is gear toward defense (thus no agility) while MAF is geared toward offense.

In my yummy world of "my WM rocks combat", agility and reflex would go into SW, SUF would be balance, parry, evasion buff, and MAF would be increased melee prowess (what ever that is) and increased damage for melee attacks. Ah wouldn't life be grand, all the gold I could eat...

>>In my yummy world of "my WM rocks combat", agility and reflex would go into SW, SUF would be balance, parry, evasion buff, and MAF would be increased melee prowess (what ever that is) and increased damage for melee attacks. Ah wouldn't life be grand, all the gold I could eat...

Sounds great, + the perception buff ;)

>>Look i'm just trying to evaluate the functionality of the spell here. Why even make it if no one will use it?

>>If you think that you could use MoF in the proposed form then great, and maybe i'm just getting way ahead of myself here since as you say these are all some major changes.

I'd use it as planned, and I dont see why anyone who wasn't trying to hide (provided it even still hinders it) wouldn't either.

>>It's obviously going to hinder it, we're saying that SuF should not provide an agility boost because it doesn't make sense yet a human torch hiding behind a bush is perfectly normal.

I haven't said that and I'm fine with it hindering stealth. I'd still use it as planned.

>>I haven't said that and I'm fine with it hindering stealth. I'd still use it as planned.

In what scenario?

I can only see advantage in melee combat, an advantage that would still be retained by boosting parry instead of agility.