Previous
Hi All - We are looking for feedback on a series of proposed changes to the sorcerer class and spell circles. Changes are oulined in the linked document.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vFQcOJVAVCMLnXD8UksBBxgFJDJE4xMVXCdVmxXPFBk/edit?usp=sharing
We look forward to the feedback!
Zissu - Combat and Magic Systems Dev Lackey
GS4-ZISSU
CLTIDBALL
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/17/2021 09:50 PM CDT
I don't play a sorcerer, so I don't have much detailed input for this, but I do have to say WOW to the summoning changes. Very awesome looking!
Also, 707, 725, and 750 all remind me of some fun times had playing Diablo II with lan-party friends, where people would play skeleton-summoning necromancers... good memories, those!
~Cylnthia Kythnis Ardenai
~Inquisitor of Kuon
~Rose Guardian, House Sylvanfair
Also, 707, 725, and 750 all remind me of some fun times had playing Diablo II with lan-party friends, where people would play skeleton-summoning necromancers... good memories, those!
~Cylnthia Kythnis Ardenai
~Inquisitor of Kuon
~Rose Guardian, House Sylvanfair
DOUG
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/17/2021 09:53 PM CDT
Wow.
I'll have to think through this, but at the moment my biggest feedback would be a cautionary note not to allow some of these to take too much time to activate or too little time to be useful. Summon a lich whut?!
Doug
I'll have to think through this, but at the moment my biggest feedback would be a cautionary note not to allow some of these to take too much time to activate or too little time to be useful. Summon a lich whut?!
Doug
OM1E5GA
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/18/2021 12:45 AM CDT
It looks like these changes are mainly aimed at DOT and "pet" combat.... which I find interesting, since on the previous feedback doc for sorcs the majority seemed to indicate that they were not interested in this type of combat. Many citing the mana costs and/or difficulty of keeping critters disabled long enough for DOT spells to do their job (which really is an absolute necessity if one is going to hunt with DOT spells), which doesn't really seem to be addressed in any significant manner.
Some specific points:
-701: There should be either a brief desc of what Major Bleed is here or a link to the PSM doc. I had a link saved, but I'm sure I'm in the minority.
-Why will 725 have a duration at all? Both the semi combat "pets" (630 and 1025) are allowed to be around indefinitely from the moment they're learned, but a capped pure that's supposed to be more attuned to magic has a 1-2 hour limit IF they make a significant investment in lores?
-750: 50 mana for 60 seconds and a 30 minute cooldown? Unless these skeletons/imps are ungodly powerful, I fail to see the point....
-706: It seems like this will require a significant amount of mana to be expended before it's even cast to be of any use... and I'm not convinced there's any benefit. I can spend less then 30 mana over 9-12 sec and have a dead critter or spend 17-51 mana over 9-15 sec still have to wait for the critter to die?
-Overall it looks like anyone hunting with DOT will be expected to be using multiple DOT spells per critter and spending a significant amount of time in front of them. Maybe if there was something in there that returned mana to sorcerers the way 320 does for clerics the DOT route would be attractive.... but even the new sacrifice will be limited to every 10 minutes, even if it's completely restoring our mana that's a drop in the bucket... particularly in places like the Rift.
-It looks like the more expensive DOT spells will somehow disable on their own, that's an improvement
-Zero improvement to a sorcerer's ability to survive/avoid any SMR attacks directed at them, which is the main reason most of us see killing as fast as possible a requirement beyond level 30ish.
These are just my initial impressions, I reserve the right to change my mind as I think/see more about it.
Starchitin, the OG
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
Some specific points:
-701: There should be either a brief desc of what Major Bleed is here or a link to the PSM doc. I had a link saved, but I'm sure I'm in the minority.
-Why will 725 have a duration at all? Both the semi combat "pets" (630 and 1025) are allowed to be around indefinitely from the moment they're learned, but a capped pure that's supposed to be more attuned to magic has a 1-2 hour limit IF they make a significant investment in lores?
-750: 50 mana for 60 seconds and a 30 minute cooldown? Unless these skeletons/imps are ungodly powerful, I fail to see the point....
-706: It seems like this will require a significant amount of mana to be expended before it's even cast to be of any use... and I'm not convinced there's any benefit. I can spend less then 30 mana over 9-12 sec and have a dead critter or spend 17-51 mana over 9-15 sec still have to wait for the critter to die?
-Overall it looks like anyone hunting with DOT will be expected to be using multiple DOT spells per critter and spending a significant amount of time in front of them. Maybe if there was something in there that returned mana to sorcerers the way 320 does for clerics the DOT route would be attractive.... but even the new sacrifice will be limited to every 10 minutes, even if it's completely restoring our mana that's a drop in the bucket... particularly in places like the Rift.
-It looks like the more expensive DOT spells will somehow disable on their own, that's an improvement
-Zero improvement to a sorcerer's ability to survive/avoid any SMR attacks directed at them, which is the main reason most of us see killing as fast as possible a requirement beyond level 30ish.
These are just my initial impressions, I reserve the right to change my mind as I think/see more about it.
Starchitin, the OG
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
ALLENM20
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/18/2021 05:10 AM CDT
1025 requires constant mana upkeep. Animal companions are flesh and blood and unique.
The update to 725 removes all the tedium and you can just recast it for 25 mana which is nothing. This is a huge win. Oh, plus demon pets will be useful.
The update to 725 removes all the tedium and you can just recast it for 25 mana which is nothing. This is a huge win. Oh, plus demon pets will be useful.
| As I gaze over the horizon, the wind tugs at my cloak and whispers, "Adventure" in my ear. |
| A squeaky halfling nearby asks, "Why you playing with orcs heads and troll rearends?!" |
ALLENM20
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/18/2021 05:34 AM CDT
Any chance of 730 applying rot flares if the sorcerer has a runestaff or weapon with rot flares and they have activated on a target within the past 5 min?
Also could a lore component be added for 730 to apply ALL of the different types of Curses (Clumsy, Weakness, Darkness, Itch, Hex, Pox, Nightmare, Star) when cast? Could this just be an alternate evoke version?
In regards to 716, will the reactive flare count as having cast the spell for 730 purposes?
Also could a lore component be added for 730 to apply ALL of the different types of Curses (Clumsy, Weakness, Darkness, Itch, Hex, Pox, Nightmare, Star) when cast? Could this just be an alternate evoke version?
In regards to 716, will the reactive flare count as having cast the spell for 730 purposes?
| As I gaze over the horizon, the wind tugs at my cloak and whispers, "Adventure" in my ear. |
| A squeaky halfling nearby asks, "Why you playing with orcs heads and troll rearends?!" |
FORTYB0X2
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/18/2021 07:01 AM CDT
Overall, I like the direction. A few comments:
1) 706 is good in concept but I don't see capped players using it when they have 705, 711, 717, 719 and 720. It will be significantly faster to just kill the creatures with these spells than the deal with DoTs.
2) 707 is good as well but same issue with #1 above. Maybe if I was level 7 and just got the spell there would be some use until I got the other spells mentioned above.
3) 710 changes are positive but again, don't see the use in a general combat setting. I'd probably use this in the DR arena and not for general hunting.
4) 718 has nice changes but don't see the point in using this spell when I can just 717, 719 or 720 the target instead.
5) 720 has good changes that I like but think the demonology lore will make the majority of sorcerers spec there instead of necro lore. Necro lore is extremely weak compared to demonology with these proposed changes.
6) 725 is great. I really like it and am excited to actually use this spell now. Like I mentioned in #5 above though, I think most sorcerer's will choose demons because the spell list highly favors that lore now.
7) 730 is a good concept. I don't see any use for this spell over the course of a normal hunt though. Maybe some DR arena usage here against champs to speed up times but otherwise think I'd likely shelf this one.
8) 740 is great. Just wanted to point out that this favors demonology lore. To reiterate, I don't see the benefit to necro lore with these changes.
9) 750 is a great concept but I think a minute usage and a 30 min cooldown is too long. I won't use this spell at all except for DR arena.
I think overall my sorcerer will be a better hunter with the new proposed spell list, so as I said above, like the direction. I just think there's some room for improvement in tweaking how some of these spells work.
I'll just say that I am worried about ascension hunting now. It seems to be geared towards a WoW styled combat. I don't want to be forced into having to group up to fight a boss with tons of HP. This spell list seems to be geared with that assumption in mind so does have me concerned.
1) 706 is good in concept but I don't see capped players using it when they have 705, 711, 717, 719 and 720. It will be significantly faster to just kill the creatures with these spells than the deal with DoTs.
2) 707 is good as well but same issue with #1 above. Maybe if I was level 7 and just got the spell there would be some use until I got the other spells mentioned above.
3) 710 changes are positive but again, don't see the use in a general combat setting. I'd probably use this in the DR arena and not for general hunting.
4) 718 has nice changes but don't see the point in using this spell when I can just 717, 719 or 720 the target instead.
5) 720 has good changes that I like but think the demonology lore will make the majority of sorcerers spec there instead of necro lore. Necro lore is extremely weak compared to demonology with these proposed changes.
6) 725 is great. I really like it and am excited to actually use this spell now. Like I mentioned in #5 above though, I think most sorcerer's will choose demons because the spell list highly favors that lore now.
7) 730 is a good concept. I don't see any use for this spell over the course of a normal hunt though. Maybe some DR arena usage here against champs to speed up times but otherwise think I'd likely shelf this one.
8) 740 is great. Just wanted to point out that this favors demonology lore. To reiterate, I don't see the benefit to necro lore with these changes.
9) 750 is a great concept but I think a minute usage and a 30 min cooldown is too long. I won't use this spell at all except for DR arena.
I think overall my sorcerer will be a better hunter with the new proposed spell list, so as I said above, like the direction. I just think there's some room for improvement in tweaking how some of these spells work.
I'll just say that I am worried about ascension hunting now. It seems to be geared towards a WoW styled combat. I don't want to be forced into having to group up to fight a boss with tons of HP. This spell list seems to be geared with that assumption in mind so does have me concerned.
ROLFARD
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/18/2021 08:43 AM CDT
One thing I'd like clarified is the 10 minute cool down for sacrifice. Currently it's max 10 minutes with the ability to reduce the cool down. I was hoping the update would elimate the cool down or come up with a cost for use under cool down. Will we be losing the ability to reduce the cool down as it currently exists?
From the wiki;
Cooldown
Each successful sacrifice has an accompanying cooldown period of 10 minutes. Ranks in Sorcerous Lore, Necromancy will reduce the time according to the following:
Ranks 1 to 120: -2 seconds per rank
Ranks 121 to 200: -0.75 seconds per rank
Ranks ≥200: -1.5 seconds per rank
The table below lists cooldown durations at various lore thresholds.
Sorcerous Lore, Necromancy ranks 0 30 60 90 120 200 240
Cooldown (minutes) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4
From the wiki;
Cooldown
Each successful sacrifice has an accompanying cooldown period of 10 minutes. Ranks in Sorcerous Lore, Necromancy will reduce the time according to the following:
Ranks 1 to 120: -2 seconds per rank
Ranks 121 to 200: -0.75 seconds per rank
Ranks ≥200: -1.5 seconds per rank
The table below lists cooldown durations at various lore thresholds.
Sorcerous Lore, Necromancy ranks 0 30 60 90 120 200 240
Cooldown (minutes) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4
AVAIA
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/18/2021 09:14 AM CDT
If 707 goes through and Sorcerers can summon Imps at the drop of a hat, is there going to be an IC reason to explain why it has become so easy to do?
Avaia, player of
Avaia, player of
NOSHUA
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/18/2021 09:38 AM CDT
Just my take but is anyone else sort of turned off by sorcs moving more to like..traditional undead necromancy? Maybe I'm alone in this, but I'd always drawn a distinction between player necromancy with animate dead and the like...luukosian steal your soul kind of necromancy. In my mind traditional undead fall in a pretty specific niche in gemstone lore and this makes it a little too accessible and nonchalant to me
I'd personally always kind of viewed player sorcerer's less like traditional fantasy necromancer's, instead having more of an occult/Lovecraft/ or even vooodoo-ey feel to them. Would have preferred to see more of that, since sorcerer's have always had some of the coolest flavor to them. Seems a shame to make them like every other RPG warlock.
I'd personally always kind of viewed player sorcerer's less like traditional fantasy necromancer's, instead having more of an occult/Lovecraft/ or even vooodoo-ey feel to them. Would have preferred to see more of that, since sorcerer's have always had some of the coolest flavor to them. Seems a shame to make them like every other RPG warlock.
NOSHUA
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/18/2021 09:38 AM CDT
Just my take but is anyone else sort of turned off by sorcs moving more to like..traditional undead necromancy? Maybe I'm alone in this, but I'd always drawn a distinction between player necromancy with animate dead and the like...luukosian steal your soul kind of necromancy. In my mind traditional undead fall in a pretty specific niche in gemstone lore and this makes it a little too accessible and nonchalant to me
I'd personally always kind of viewed player sorcerer's less like traditional fantasy necromancer's, instead having more of an occult/Lovecraft/ or even vooodoo-ey feel to them. Would have preferred to see more of that, since sorcerer's have always had some of the coolest flavor to them. Seems a shame to make them like every other RPG warlock.
I'd personally always kind of viewed player sorcerer's less like traditional fantasy necromancer's, instead having more of an occult/Lovecraft/ or even vooodoo-ey feel to them. Would have preferred to see more of that, since sorcerer's have always had some of the coolest flavor to them. Seems a shame to make them like every other RPG warlock.
LEAFIARA
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/18/2021 11:09 AM CDT
The new 707 and especially 725 are probably my favorite changes thematically with the variety of options, but even the minor things like the 702 dispel and 701 Major Bleed are cool too.
For 750, at first I recoiled at the 30 minute cooldown. Then I considered... It's sort of like 1650, except with even more power and all of it focused into a 1-minute period. I'm not entirely sure that's how dev sees it, though. Oscuro's comments comparing it to 50th level spells that only have 1x/day use before lores make me think maybe it's intended as more of a "dire emergency" spell. Either way, I'm actually cool with the 30 minutes now and really excited to see a summoned army going! (...while hoping against hope that it doesn't crash the game if half a dozen sorcerers cast it during an invasion.)
The absence of any further support for bolting or even Spell Aiming beyond the 715 QoL seems a little odd to me. Balefire was always hurting with no booster in the power tier of Rapid Fire, Spirit Slayer, or even Empathic Link. The summoning niche is a cool and flavorful new element, though, like I said, so I don't think anything "needs" to be done with bolts or SA; I'm just surprised nothing new was done.
I'll stay in "wait and see" mode on the various DoTs. Was skeptical in previous feedback and still am now, but willing to at least wait until they're on the test server.
For 750, at first I recoiled at the 30 minute cooldown. Then I considered... It's sort of like 1650, except with even more power and all of it focused into a 1-minute period. I'm not entirely sure that's how dev sees it, though. Oscuro's comments comparing it to 50th level spells that only have 1x/day use before lores make me think maybe it's intended as more of a "dire emergency" spell. Either way, I'm actually cool with the 30 minutes now and really excited to see a summoned army going! (...while hoping against hope that it doesn't crash the game if half a dozen sorcerers cast it during an invasion.)
The absence of any further support for bolting or even Spell Aiming beyond the 715 QoL seems a little odd to me. Balefire was always hurting with no booster in the power tier of Rapid Fire, Spirit Slayer, or even Empathic Link. The summoning niche is a cool and flavorful new element, though, like I said, so I don't think anything "needs" to be done with bolts or SA; I'm just surprised nothing new was done.
I'll stay in "wait and see" mode on the various DoTs. Was skeptical in previous feedback and still am now, but willing to at least wait until they're on the test server.
GS4-ZISSU
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/18/2021 11:27 AM CDT
>>One thing I'd like clarified is the 10 minute cool down for sacrifice.<<
Since the benefit is now disconnected from the resource generation aspect for sacrifice, the cooldown is very different now. There is no cooldown on sacrificing itself to generate soul fragments, but cooldowns on each benefit. Redeeming a soul fragment for mana with no cooldown would be unlimited mana, etc.
Zissu - Combat and Magic Systems Dev Lackey
Since the benefit is now disconnected from the resource generation aspect for sacrifice, the cooldown is very different now. There is no cooldown on sacrificing itself to generate soul fragments, but cooldowns on each benefit. Redeeming a soul fragment for mana with no cooldown would be unlimited mana, etc.
Zissu - Combat and Magic Systems Dev Lackey
LORD-STIGS
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/18/2021 12:01 PM CDT
First I want to thank everyone who put work into the document and coding and discussions that happen behind the scenes. I am going to disagree with points here, but that does not take away from my appreciation of the work that has been done to update professions or other mechanical systems over the last 12 months. Thank you for your considerable work.
Just browsing over the document, here are some initial big observations: There was already an established 'dualism' for sorcerers as hybrid demonologists in lore and mechanically through their spell circles. The lore component of necromancy vs. demonology was added over time, but this seems to double down on that 'new' dualism, and suffocates other alternatives. This is not just a critique on the backstory/lore of sorcerers, but has real mechanical implications that privilege this path.
This 'edgelord' zombie master is not part of gemstone lore as I know it, but maybe there are some additional documents that I'm not aware of that someone can point to. Sorcerers were hybridists with demonology in my reading, I am still unclear where all the undead/warlock/'green rotting man' draw from, or why beneficial hybrid routes have been dropped. Why the hybrid dualism has consistently been diminished in favor of necromancy vs. demonology is perplexing to me. I am sure this type of sorcerer dichotomy appeals to some players, and I am glad it exists for that reason, but it has come at the cost of accentuating the weakness or sorcerers who have two minor spell circles that are also the two weakest circles.
*Some mechanical implications, agency of the sorcerer, 750:*
*How many pets is too many pets?*
The demonology vs. necromancy dualism has led to an exploding number of pets, because both necromancy and demonology both 'need' pets in order to balance the other lores pet. While animate dead and minor summoning have happily been combined, pets are now more prominent, and this has not worked in gemstone in the past. Can it be overcome? Maybe, but it has implications for the capstone spell of 750.
DoT:
As has been covered in other comments and the player-document, people are skeptical of this route. I think the GM-document is clearly forward-looking, and players don't know what ascension content is going to be. If OSA is any indication and we can expect 2000HP non-crittable creatures as the norm, maybe DoT can work; but it still means standing around waiting for pets and DoT to do the work of the sorcerer puppet master while other professions quickly work through the same obstacles with RT-reduction and better self-generated AoE. Will, for instance, mass 717 maintain the TD penalty? Are all new areas going to be marked 'no-AoE 717' as OSA is currently?
750:
My biggest critique is 750. As it is now, using pets and fixation on demonology/necromancy, I would prefer it did not come to fruition. It seems terrible to say that you dont want a 50th level spell, but I would take no capstone spell and the opportunity to have it later (based on future considerations of ascension), than a weak capstone spell. As is, it looks like some kind of re-skin of treekin druid/saplings or bowels earth elementals. *This is really not an appealing route.* The 50th level spell should come back to the hybrid elemental/spiritual nature of the sorcerer: a buff that is a weak 1750, something to compound the benefits of all three lore types effectively (elemental, spiritual, sorcerer), or ability to tap a major circle to make up for the deficits of the minor/minor circles. Having a pet as the pinnacle of sorcery seems at odds with a profession that is focused on accumulating personal agency and knowledge. In addition, there are already a lot of pet options already in the sub-50 spells, so it becomes very redundant as well; a clotting/staunching problem.
Just browsing over the document, here are some initial big observations: There was already an established 'dualism' for sorcerers as hybrid demonologists in lore and mechanically through their spell circles. The lore component of necromancy vs. demonology was added over time, but this seems to double down on that 'new' dualism, and suffocates other alternatives. This is not just a critique on the backstory/lore of sorcerers, but has real mechanical implications that privilege this path.
This 'edgelord' zombie master is not part of gemstone lore as I know it, but maybe there are some additional documents that I'm not aware of that someone can point to. Sorcerers were hybridists with demonology in my reading, I am still unclear where all the undead/warlock/'green rotting man' draw from, or why beneficial hybrid routes have been dropped. Why the hybrid dualism has consistently been diminished in favor of necromancy vs. demonology is perplexing to me. I am sure this type of sorcerer dichotomy appeals to some players, and I am glad it exists for that reason, but it has come at the cost of accentuating the weakness or sorcerers who have two minor spell circles that are also the two weakest circles.
*Some mechanical implications, agency of the sorcerer, 750:*
*How many pets is too many pets?*
The demonology vs. necromancy dualism has led to an exploding number of pets, because both necromancy and demonology both 'need' pets in order to balance the other lores pet. While animate dead and minor summoning have happily been combined, pets are now more prominent, and this has not worked in gemstone in the past. Can it be overcome? Maybe, but it has implications for the capstone spell of 750.
DoT:
As has been covered in other comments and the player-document, people are skeptical of this route. I think the GM-document is clearly forward-looking, and players don't know what ascension content is going to be. If OSA is any indication and we can expect 2000HP non-crittable creatures as the norm, maybe DoT can work; but it still means standing around waiting for pets and DoT to do the work of the sorcerer puppet master while other professions quickly work through the same obstacles with RT-reduction and better self-generated AoE. Will, for instance, mass 717 maintain the TD penalty? Are all new areas going to be marked 'no-AoE 717' as OSA is currently?
750:
My biggest critique is 750. As it is now, using pets and fixation on demonology/necromancy, I would prefer it did not come to fruition. It seems terrible to say that you dont want a 50th level spell, but I would take no capstone spell and the opportunity to have it later (based on future considerations of ascension), than a weak capstone spell. As is, it looks like some kind of re-skin of treekin druid/saplings or bowels earth elementals. *This is really not an appealing route.* The 50th level spell should come back to the hybrid elemental/spiritual nature of the sorcerer: a buff that is a weak 1750, something to compound the benefits of all three lore types effectively (elemental, spiritual, sorcerer), or ability to tap a major circle to make up for the deficits of the minor/minor circles. Having a pet as the pinnacle of sorcery seems at odds with a profession that is focused on accumulating personal agency and knowledge. In addition, there are already a lot of pet options already in the sub-50 spells, so it becomes very redundant as well; a clotting/staunching problem.
LUXELLE
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/18/2021 12:04 PM CDT
>1025 requires constant mana upkeep.
... and a significant investment in lores to be useful in combat.
--
ESP TUNE TOWNCRIER or ;tune towncrier
Web: http://gstowncrier.com/
Daily Email: gstowncrier.com/subscribe/
gstowncrier.com/where-to-find-the-towncrier/
Send in news: https://bit.ly/2ISsz2l
P.S. Help Wanted, Inquire Within
... and a significant investment in lores to be useful in combat.
--
ESP TUNE TOWNCRIER or ;tune towncrier
Web: http://gstowncrier.com/
Daily Email: gstowncrier.com/subscribe/
gstowncrier.com/where-to-find-the-towncrier/
Send in news: https://bit.ly/2ISsz2l
P.S. Help Wanted, Inquire Within
ROLFARD
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/18/2021 01:31 PM CDT
Currently, as it stands, one may with the right lore use sacrifice for about 120 mana every 5 minutes. That's not unlimited mana but a significantly limited bonus mana resource. I won't go into how mana leech + wracking extends my wizards hunts indefinitely but would like to see some positive direction on how sacrifice nets mana for a sorcerer.
Could that mean we would see more than our current max 120 mana on a sacrifice every 5 minutes? Could it be a cool-down of 5 minutes (as we see today with lore benefits) for the present 120 mana?
I use sacrifice every hunt, sometimes twice a hunt because I have the necromancy lore to do so, and I still run out of mana in under 15 minutes with 3x harness power (which is important to note since I have loot boosts at my disposal that last 15 minutes but I run out of mana before the boost runs out!).
Another question about sorcery updates is regarding 701 and 717 currently not working on undead. Is there a plan for them to function in some way vs undead? I specifically wonder about 701 for undead as it's part of the complex spell diversity to maximize the use of the new 730 proposal.
Thanks Zissu for giving sorcerers your energy and attention!
Could that mean we would see more than our current max 120 mana on a sacrifice every 5 minutes? Could it be a cool-down of 5 minutes (as we see today with lore benefits) for the present 120 mana?
I use sacrifice every hunt, sometimes twice a hunt because I have the necromancy lore to do so, and I still run out of mana in under 15 minutes with 3x harness power (which is important to note since I have loot boosts at my disposal that last 15 minutes but I run out of mana before the boost runs out!).
Another question about sorcery updates is regarding 701 and 717 currently not working on undead. Is there a plan for them to function in some way vs undead? I specifically wonder about 701 for undead as it's part of the complex spell diversity to maximize the use of the new 730 proposal.
Thanks Zissu for giving sorcerers your energy and attention!
SLACKER1
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/18/2021 01:50 PM CDT
My overall thought is that this is a spectacularly imaginative buff to make up for the 711 nerf. In that sense, it's a huge gain.
711 nerf: sorcs lost a boring but extremely powerful tool against high-health boss type critters. There's not really any other option.
These changes give a multitude of high damage potential spells that we can stack on some mega-critter to take it down in a reasonable time period.
Meanwhile, have we lost anything from our current useful toolkit?
702 - improved
705 - improved
709 - not sure if this is an improvement or not but seems fine
711 - no change - still a useful RT-locking spell
716 - improved
717 - single target the same, aoe improved
720 - improved
740 - improved
So at the end of the day, the good stuff we had gets better or stays the same, and we get a ton of new toys, most of which seem fairly well suited to take down bosses. Hopefully we can control them a bit with 706/709/711 while stacking bleeds and critters that will kill them for us.
I share the concern that most of the new spells are niche and won't find their way into a normal rotation but hopefully with testing they will be tweaked to a state where they are viable hunting options for speed an efficacy.
I'm also pretty concerned about the lores...I don't want it to be 200 or bust and your other lore is just enhancives/ascension dependent. Demon seems way stronger than necro right now, but I definitely don't want to fully lose my 711 necro benefit.
Thanks for all the work that goes into these changes!
711 nerf: sorcs lost a boring but extremely powerful tool against high-health boss type critters. There's not really any other option.
These changes give a multitude of high damage potential spells that we can stack on some mega-critter to take it down in a reasonable time period.
Meanwhile, have we lost anything from our current useful toolkit?
702 - improved
705 - improved
709 - not sure if this is an improvement or not but seems fine
711 - no change - still a useful RT-locking spell
716 - improved
717 - single target the same, aoe improved
720 - improved
740 - improved
So at the end of the day, the good stuff we had gets better or stays the same, and we get a ton of new toys, most of which seem fairly well suited to take down bosses. Hopefully we can control them a bit with 706/709/711 while stacking bleeds and critters that will kill them for us.
I share the concern that most of the new spells are niche and won't find their way into a normal rotation but hopefully with testing they will be tweaked to a state where they are viable hunting options for speed an efficacy.
I'm also pretty concerned about the lores...I don't want it to be 200 or bust and your other lore is just enhancives/ascension dependent. Demon seems way stronger than necro right now, but I definitely don't want to fully lose my 711 necro benefit.
Thanks for all the work that goes into these changes!
SLACKER1
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/18/2021 01:53 PM CDT
Oh and I forgot to mention my concern that I won't be able to generate soul fragments at all in the Confluence. I'm hoping that while you can't sacrifice elementals, you might still be able to get fragments via 706?
MEKK51
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/18/2021 02:01 PM CDT
Everything looks good for the most part.
I would have liked more QoL updates for sacrifice. Like the life threshold being raised to half, especially if we are expected to be rolling 3+ DoTs.
The only spell I have an issue with is 730. I feel like something needs to change with it to become useful, either taking out the 5 minutes timer to cast all those spells or remove the 5 minute CD to use the spell again.
Otherwise I think everything looks great.
~Sabotage
I would have liked more QoL updates for sacrifice. Like the life threshold being raised to half, especially if we are expected to be rolling 3+ DoTs.
The only spell I have an issue with is 730. I feel like something needs to change with it to become useful, either taking out the 5 minutes timer to cast all those spells or remove the 5 minute CD to use the spell again.
Otherwise I think everything looks great.
~Sabotage
GS4-ZISSU
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/18/2021 04:48 PM CDT
>>Rolford - Currently, as it stands...<<
I missed your point earlier, but I understand now. Thanks for spelling it out. I don't have anything to offer yet, but I grabbed it as a note to discuss.
Zissu - Combat and Magic Systems Dev Lackey
I missed your point earlier, but I understand now. Thanks for spelling it out. I don't have anything to offer yet, but I grabbed it as a note to discuss.
Zissu - Combat and Magic Systems Dev Lackey
BBRODRIGUEZ
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/18/2021 05:47 PM CDT
>709 - not sure if this is an improvement or not but seems fine
I don't believe this will be a side step of the current version nor an improvement.
So far all SMRv2 spells I've played with have a tendency to be, like always, heavily based on level of caster vs level of target.
If this is to keep true, I can guarantee any sorcerer hunting like level or slightly over hunting will notices an increased failure rate of hands grabbing targets. Using SMRv2 with 917 for so long, I have seen so many casts of the spell give me upwards of 5 (there are 6 crit cycles in the spell) crit cycles having all negative rolls. I see a lot of negative rolls and very low roll attempts in the first few crit cycles as well that the target takes little damage or avoids it.
I know when I come across creatures that are 3+ trainings over my capped wizard because 917 tends to hit less like a claid on the first crit cycle and more like a falchion, the crit power drops off significantly. I can only imagine that the main crowd control spell my level 71 sorcerer uses will soon fall short of what I've come to expect to see from how it currently functions.
I could certainly be wrong, but I strongly doubt it. We won't know for sure until the spell is updated, but as of right now I'm not expecting anything, but disappointment. Hopefully they prove me wrong and the spell stays as functional as it is.
I don't believe this will be a side step of the current version nor an improvement.
So far all SMRv2 spells I've played with have a tendency to be, like always, heavily based on level of caster vs level of target.
If this is to keep true, I can guarantee any sorcerer hunting like level or slightly over hunting will notices an increased failure rate of hands grabbing targets. Using SMRv2 with 917 for so long, I have seen so many casts of the spell give me upwards of 5 (there are 6 crit cycles in the spell) crit cycles having all negative rolls. I see a lot of negative rolls and very low roll attempts in the first few crit cycles as well that the target takes little damage or avoids it.
I know when I come across creatures that are 3+ trainings over my capped wizard because 917 tends to hit less like a claid on the first crit cycle and more like a falchion, the crit power drops off significantly. I can only imagine that the main crowd control spell my level 71 sorcerer uses will soon fall short of what I've come to expect to see from how it currently functions.
I could certainly be wrong, but I strongly doubt it. We won't know for sure until the spell is updated, but as of right now I'm not expecting anything, but disappointment. Hopefully they prove me wrong and the spell stays as functional as it is.
KRAKII
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/18/2021 06:28 PM CDT
I've never really gotten into the Sorcerer, so I have little feedback on the mechanics.
However, "100 ranks of Demonology Lore" to make 7 imps casting Major Fire (== ball spell w/splashy effects) every 3 seconds == stupid amounts of screen scroll.
And the skeletons that you get on the other side had better have some really nice attacks to offset taking +66% extra time to have them go through. (And with no splashy.)
However, "100 ranks of Demonology Lore" to make 7 imps casting Major Fire (== ball spell w/splashy effects) every 3 seconds == stupid amounts of screen scroll.
And the skeletons that you get on the other side had better have some really nice attacks to offset taking +66% extra time to have them go through. (And with no splashy.)
MIGHTONS
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/18/2021 07:59 PM CDT
I don't play a sorcerer, but my outsider's initial impression are:
720)
I am shocked at the lack of pushback. I thought there would be pages of complaints.
Loot retention is what everyone has always wanted, sure, but standardizing the instant vaporization kill formula with 1106/1115 seems like a huge downgrade. 100 ranks of Demon Lore for just 9% insta vap chance, 192 ranks for just 13%, and perhaps most notably no chance at all without Demon Lore?
I know there will be crit kills without the insta vap proc, but those can't kill non-corp, and surely can't make up for the reduced vaporization rate. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe the current version is less powerful than it seems from a non-sorc perspective; but for now I just feel sad that a feared and iconic spell will be brought low. I don't even want the creatures who cast it at me nerfed.
2 of the 3 crit cycles are described as "lesser impact criticals". What is the range we are talking about here? Will rank 5/6/7's be in the envelope so that the secondary/tertiary cycles can still get kills? Or will they just be rank 2/3/4 "flavor" type cycles?
705)
This feels like a strong boost. 3 crit cycles on a stunned creature for just 5 mana should give decent crit kill chances on the 2nd cast (after the 1st cast stuns them). These are "full power" - for the spell - crit cycles? I.e. equal to the current ones, given the same endroll and randomization?
706)
Adding the rooted status should make it more powerful and versatile against things that don't stun, or break stuns.
However, stylistically, I've always liked the messaging (both 3rd and 1st party/victim) of the current version. Can Mind Jolt be retained as an Arcane Spell, found on glass wands or other common items, and remain cast by at least a subset of the creatures who currently cast it, rather than migrating everything to the new version?
750)
Doc says horde type summoned will be based on which lore type caster has more ranks in. I think it should be caster-selectable. E.g. if Imps are your default, but the boss critter you are taking down is resistant/immune to magic (or fire) then you should have a choice to summon the Skeletons instead.
730 + other DOTs)
It looks like this be useful primarily if the DOT buffs make those spells good enough to use on their own. Hopefully they will. Test server will tell I suppose.
720)
I am shocked at the lack of pushback. I thought there would be pages of complaints.
Loot retention is what everyone has always wanted, sure, but standardizing the instant vaporization kill formula with 1106/1115 seems like a huge downgrade. 100 ranks of Demon Lore for just 9% insta vap chance, 192 ranks for just 13%, and perhaps most notably no chance at all without Demon Lore?
I know there will be crit kills without the insta vap proc, but those can't kill non-corp, and surely can't make up for the reduced vaporization rate. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe the current version is less powerful than it seems from a non-sorc perspective; but for now I just feel sad that a feared and iconic spell will be brought low. I don't even want the creatures who cast it at me nerfed.
2 of the 3 crit cycles are described as "lesser impact criticals". What is the range we are talking about here? Will rank 5/6/7's be in the envelope so that the secondary/tertiary cycles can still get kills? Or will they just be rank 2/3/4 "flavor" type cycles?
705)
This feels like a strong boost. 3 crit cycles on a stunned creature for just 5 mana should give decent crit kill chances on the 2nd cast (after the 1st cast stuns them). These are "full power" - for the spell - crit cycles? I.e. equal to the current ones, given the same endroll and randomization?
706)
Adding the rooted status should make it more powerful and versatile against things that don't stun, or break stuns.
However, stylistically, I've always liked the messaging (both 3rd and 1st party/victim) of the current version. Can Mind Jolt be retained as an Arcane Spell, found on glass wands or other common items, and remain cast by at least a subset of the creatures who currently cast it, rather than migrating everything to the new version?
750)
Doc says horde type summoned will be based on which lore type caster has more ranks in. I think it should be caster-selectable. E.g. if Imps are your default, but the boss critter you are taking down is resistant/immune to magic (or fire) then you should have a choice to summon the Skeletons instead.
730 + other DOTs)
It looks like this be useful primarily if the DOT buffs make those spells good enough to use on their own. Hopefully they will. Test server will tell I suppose.
OM1E5GA
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/18/2021 08:37 PM CDT
<I am shocked at the lack of pushback. I thought there would be pages of complaints.>
Focused 720 is only good if you 2x in Spell Aim, which many sorcerers don't have, and even then it's basically a spell of last resort for when the manure hits the fan. Before the AOE changes, open 720 was only useful in conjunction with 435 (cause it both stunned and knocked down foes) in swarms or invasions IF you were willing to risk killing other players in the process. The AOE changes took away even that use for the open cast version.
I'm not thrilled with it utilizing Demonology rather then Mana Controls, but TBH there's not much they can to to it to make it less useful then it is in it's current form... even if it does look like the open cast version is going away.
<Adding the rooted status should make it more powerful and versatile against things that don't stun, or break stuns.>
The rooted status isn't really gonna be of much use against things 706 isn't already good against (read: mostly living critters below level 40-50), since critters can still attack while rooted. The main advantage to the new version for higher level socerers will be speeding up any DoT spell you cast before casting 706.... which gives critters immune to stuns or that shake them plenty of time to get out of the room before you root them if you're gonna use more then one DoT on them.
The big question with 706 is whether or not the duration of the stun is changing from what it is now. If that's gonna be capped at 10 sec, it'll be a pretty big nerf for low/mid level sorcerers.
Starchitin, the OG
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
Focused 720 is only good if you 2x in Spell Aim, which many sorcerers don't have, and even then it's basically a spell of last resort for when the manure hits the fan. Before the AOE changes, open 720 was only useful in conjunction with 435 (cause it both stunned and knocked down foes) in swarms or invasions IF you were willing to risk killing other players in the process. The AOE changes took away even that use for the open cast version.
I'm not thrilled with it utilizing Demonology rather then Mana Controls, but TBH there's not much they can to to it to make it less useful then it is in it's current form... even if it does look like the open cast version is going away.
<Adding the rooted status should make it more powerful and versatile against things that don't stun, or break stuns.>
The rooted status isn't really gonna be of much use against things 706 isn't already good against (read: mostly living critters below level 40-50), since critters can still attack while rooted. The main advantage to the new version for higher level socerers will be speeding up any DoT spell you cast before casting 706.... which gives critters immune to stuns or that shake them plenty of time to get out of the room before you root them if you're gonna use more then one DoT on them.
The big question with 706 is whether or not the duration of the stun is changing from what it is now. If that's gonna be capped at 10 sec, it'll be a pretty big nerf for low/mid level sorcerers.
Starchitin, the OG
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
CAELRIC
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/18/2021 09:16 PM CDT
So much for the multiple requests to have something to help weapon swinging sorcs, or bolting sorcs.
A resounding meh from me with regards to these proposed changes.
A resounding meh from me with regards to these proposed changes.
MIGHTONS
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/18/2021 09:24 PM CDT
<Focused 720 is only good if you 2x in Spell Aim, which many sorcerers don't have, and even then it's basically a spell of last resort for when the manure hits the fan. Before the AOE changes, open 720 was only useful in conjunction with 435 (cause it both stunned and knocked down foes) in swarms or invasions IF you were willing to risk killing other players in the process. The AOE changes took away even that use for the open cast version.
Fair enough. I sometimes see people using it against Sentries and GWEs. I thought maybe those were hard to get good warding margins on (they are hard for my wizard to ward), and cast nasty stuff so they need to be killed quickly, and I guess I assumed that was the type of niche that focused implosion occupied. The new version will not be useful against either of those creatures anymore. But if sorcs don't care, who am I to care, I guess. Truly though, I hope the new version will still allow creatures to kill players easily, regardless of training, class, or counter-measures (other than maybe sorcs, who will now get a defense boost by knowing the spell, based on the new SMRv2 rules). I feel like they have toned down some things recently that used to kill me or at least put me in danger (917, every bandit CM, Destroyer maneuvers), and I don't really like it.
<The rooted status isn't really gonna be of much use against things 706 isn't already good against (read: mostly living critters below level 40-50), since critters can still attack while rooted. The main advantage to the new version for higher level socerers will be speeding up any DoT spell you cast before casting 706.... which gives critters immune to stuns or that shake them plenty of time to get out of the room before you root them if you're gonna use more then one DoT on them.
Was thinking more that the rooted status prevent creatures from maneuvering you, giving it an ability to disable creatures that are unstunnable and whose most dangerous attacks are maneuvers.
Fair enough. I sometimes see people using it against Sentries and GWEs. I thought maybe those were hard to get good warding margins on (they are hard for my wizard to ward), and cast nasty stuff so they need to be killed quickly, and I guess I assumed that was the type of niche that focused implosion occupied. The new version will not be useful against either of those creatures anymore. But if sorcs don't care, who am I to care, I guess. Truly though, I hope the new version will still allow creatures to kill players easily, regardless of training, class, or counter-measures (other than maybe sorcs, who will now get a defense boost by knowing the spell, based on the new SMRv2 rules). I feel like they have toned down some things recently that used to kill me or at least put me in danger (917, every bandit CM, Destroyer maneuvers), and I don't really like it.
<The rooted status isn't really gonna be of much use against things 706 isn't already good against (read: mostly living critters below level 40-50), since critters can still attack while rooted. The main advantage to the new version for higher level socerers will be speeding up any DoT spell you cast before casting 706.... which gives critters immune to stuns or that shake them plenty of time to get out of the room before you root them if you're gonna use more then one DoT on them.
Was thinking more that the rooted status prevent creatures from maneuvering you, giving it an ability to disable creatures that are unstunnable and whose most dangerous attacks are maneuvers.
AVAIA
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/18/2021 10:09 PM CDT
>720)
>I am shocked at the lack of pushback. I thought there would be pages of complaints.
>Loot retention is what everyone has always wanted, sure, but standardizing the instant vaporization kill formula with 1106/1115 seems like a huge downgrade.
It is a huge downgrade, yes. Massive. Personally I don't like it at all. But, people have been whining about critter-cast Implosion basically daily in the 2-ish years I have been watching the Discord Mechanics channel. I kid you not. Daily. It is usually the same handful of people, over and over and over and over and over again.
It has been made abundantly clear by GMs that 720 was going to change. Period. There was no undoing that fact. Speaking for myself, I am not going to get into some drawn-out potentially heated argument about it when nothing I could ever say will keep 720 the way it was.
Avaia, player of
>I am shocked at the lack of pushback. I thought there would be pages of complaints.
>Loot retention is what everyone has always wanted, sure, but standardizing the instant vaporization kill formula with 1106/1115 seems like a huge downgrade.
It is a huge downgrade, yes. Massive. Personally I don't like it at all. But, people have been whining about critter-cast Implosion basically daily in the 2-ish years I have been watching the Discord Mechanics channel. I kid you not. Daily. It is usually the same handful of people, over and over and over and over and over again.
It has been made abundantly clear by GMs that 720 was going to change. Period. There was no undoing that fact. Speaking for myself, I am not going to get into some drawn-out potentially heated argument about it when nothing I could ever say will keep 720 the way it was.
Avaia, player of
JTU
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/18/2021 10:30 PM CDT
I see that the new 706 gives both the "rooted" and "stunned" conditions, both of which add DS penalties on the target. Do they stack? If they currently don't (which is probably the case since rooted doesn't play nice with a lot of other status conditions), making them stack would allow this spell to apply a pretty hefty DS penalty to the target, and thus combo well with bolting and maybe swinging. Might be something to consider.
GS4-ZISSU
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/18/2021 11:06 PM CDT
>>General 720 Comments<<
I know there will be a lot of varing opinions on if the 720 changes are an improvement or not, but I do want to offer a bit more into why this change is important. Current 720 is a very dated spell with a large amount of legacy logic. While this leads to some things like high damage numbers or high rate insta-kills, it also means that it lacks all of the hooks into modern systems we are actively building. Every time we build a new item script, a new combat system, etc, 720 may not interact with those changes like it should. The most important change coming out of 720 is that it is being modernized, and therefor much more consitant to the behaviors you would expect it to have.
Zissu - Combat and Magic Systems Dev Lackey
I know there will be a lot of varing opinions on if the 720 changes are an improvement or not, but I do want to offer a bit more into why this change is important. Current 720 is a very dated spell with a large amount of legacy logic. While this leads to some things like high damage numbers or high rate insta-kills, it also means that it lacks all of the hooks into modern systems we are actively building. Every time we build a new item script, a new combat system, etc, 720 may not interact with those changes like it should. The most important change coming out of 720 is that it is being modernized, and therefor much more consitant to the behaviors you would expect it to have.
Zissu - Combat and Magic Systems Dev Lackey
MIGHTONS
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/18/2021 11:49 PM CDT
>I know there will be a lot of varing opinions on if the 720 changes are an improvement or not, but I do want to offer a bit more into why this change is important. Current 720 is a very dated spell with a large amount of legacy logic. While this leads to some things like high damage numbers or high rate insta-kills, it also means that it lacks all of the hooks into modern systems we are actively building. Every time we build a new item script, a new combat system, etc, 720 may not interact with those changes like it should. The most important change coming out of 720 is that it is being modernized, and therefor much more consitant to the behaviors you would expect it to have.
>Zissu - Combat and Magic Systems Dev Lackey
You're doing good work. Thank you.
I am down with modernization to make the code more maintainable, more modular, more easily tied in with other new developments, etc.
I don't think this necessarily has to be accompanied by a significant reduction in the spell's combat power.
Now, maybe I'm wrong about the reduced power. In fact, when it comes to crittable creatures (and players?), maybe the new version will be just as good. Maybe having overtrained 700 ranks and 2x spell aim will lead to consistently high SMRv2 endrolls and plenty of crit kills, even without the vaporization effect. I hope so, and probably believe so as well.
For non-corp though... maybe a boost to the vaporization chance or something? Triple the baseline for a given lore level? Or maybe a vaporization boost based on SMR endroll margin? Because non-corp are made of air/ether/whatever and are more easily sucked into the void? You are casting a full 20 mana spell now after all, and which also has a cooldown I see in the doc.
I say all this as a non-sorc whose only experience of implosion is occasionally dying from it. I just don't want to see it whittled away to a shadow of it's former self. To me, the spell is iconic. And hunting is more fun when the stuff you're hunting can kill you.
>Zissu - Combat and Magic Systems Dev Lackey
You're doing good work. Thank you.
I am down with modernization to make the code more maintainable, more modular, more easily tied in with other new developments, etc.
I don't think this necessarily has to be accompanied by a significant reduction in the spell's combat power.
Now, maybe I'm wrong about the reduced power. In fact, when it comes to crittable creatures (and players?), maybe the new version will be just as good. Maybe having overtrained 700 ranks and 2x spell aim will lead to consistently high SMRv2 endrolls and plenty of crit kills, even without the vaporization effect. I hope so, and probably believe so as well.
For non-corp though... maybe a boost to the vaporization chance or something? Triple the baseline for a given lore level? Or maybe a vaporization boost based on SMR endroll margin? Because non-corp are made of air/ether/whatever and are more easily sucked into the void? You are casting a full 20 mana spell now after all, and which also has a cooldown I see in the doc.
I say all this as a non-sorc whose only experience of implosion is occasionally dying from it. I just don't want to see it whittled away to a shadow of it's former self. To me, the spell is iconic. And hunting is more fun when the stuff you're hunting can kill you.
ZENNSUNNI
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/19/2021 10:28 AM CDT
Overall I think the proposed changes doc looks pretty good. I think bifurcating summoning spells based on lore was a great idea. I'll list my concerns and criticism for the sake of brevity, since listing what I like would be a lot longer.
- 725: I am worried about the distinction between necromancy and demonology falling prey to being just generic 'flavor' as opposed to a tangible difference. Summoning a combat demon or a combat undead is a capstone ability for most sorcerers. While I think rolling the two together into a single spell (725) can be done, I think it's important that mechanical distinctions remain between the two. I know the document is just an overview, but that was my immediate response to how 725 was described, namely I asked myself - will this spell be essentially an <insert summoned guy here> with flavor messaging for each lore? I surely hope not, and I think you folks are on the same page with having various types of summoned critters. Just wanted to voice the concern, but I think if the various demons and undead have really distinct abilities that this could be a homerun. Fleshing out the demons is particularly important. Everyone has an idea of a lich and a death knight, but most of us don't know what a Vathor is - that's fine, just make sure the messaging and ambients for the critter show us how nasty and rad they are!
- *Blood Shield* / *Soul Fragments*: I mostly wanted to point out the proliferation of WoW abilities in Gemstone. These are both lifted straight from it. I don't like it, and I love WoW. What's a soul fragment? Where do I keep it? It just feels transparently arbitrary like a game-system whose in-character manifestation is still obviously a game system. This is always a part of an RPG to a varying degree, but I think we can do better. Instead of 'Blood shield', call it 'tranfusion' - you suck the life force from your foe and store it to immediately heal part of any incoming injury, granting temporary damage padding. Instead of 'soul fragments' call it 'animus,' i.e. 'You have absorbed the animus of four victims into your spirit.' These may seem like meaningless changes, but they are subtly different - they (hopefully) show a little more clear effort to weave the game system into the world, as opposed to having it stand as an obvious, one-for-one allegory for the mechanics themselves.
- 740: Sounds good, sound useful, sounds generic. Again, this is not so much a criticism, but rather giving you feedback on how I reacted while reading about the proposed ability. Is there some way to make this feel a little less like sigil of escape? Maybe this would even just boil down to messaging, I dunno.
- 716: I think pestilence should be a cornerstone attack spell for necromancers. As such, I would like to see this spell dramatically impacted by necromancy lore, such that at something like 25/50/75/100 ranks, the necromancer unlocks specific types of disease that have powerful effects. Examples: At 25 ranks, the sorcerer can `incant 716 tumor` - the necromancer's disease inflicts a crippling brain tumor on the victim, giving them a 50% + 1% for every 10 ranks over 25 chance to fail any spell cast. Other effects could be paralysis, then at 75 ranks dementia (the victim immediately attacks a creature in the room aggressive toward the necromancer), and finally at 100 ranks, `toxic shock` - the victim has a chance to instantly die of shock due to the virulence of the disease.
- 730 - Ehhhhh. Like it seems powerful, but it doesn't excite me. I don't have any other ideas off the top of my head for a 30th level spell, but this was my reaction.
- 750 - 30 minutes is too long. If you have to make the cooldown that prohibitive due to the power of the spell, I'd rather the spell be less powerful. Ultra-long cooldowns are, in my opinion, bad design if it's a cool capstone spell, we want to use it, not annihilate some normal critter every half hour with it and then move on. If GS had 'bosses' this would be fine, but in general it doesn't.
Sorry for the WoT, but you asked for feedback! The document looks great overall, thanks for all the hard work.
-
- 725: I am worried about the distinction between necromancy and demonology falling prey to being just generic 'flavor' as opposed to a tangible difference. Summoning a combat demon or a combat undead is a capstone ability for most sorcerers. While I think rolling the two together into a single spell (725) can be done, I think it's important that mechanical distinctions remain between the two. I know the document is just an overview, but that was my immediate response to how 725 was described, namely I asked myself - will this spell be essentially an <insert summoned guy here> with flavor messaging for each lore? I surely hope not, and I think you folks are on the same page with having various types of summoned critters. Just wanted to voice the concern, but I think if the various demons and undead have really distinct abilities that this could be a homerun. Fleshing out the demons is particularly important. Everyone has an idea of a lich and a death knight, but most of us don't know what a Vathor is - that's fine, just make sure the messaging and ambients for the critter show us how nasty and rad they are!
- *Blood Shield* / *Soul Fragments*: I mostly wanted to point out the proliferation of WoW abilities in Gemstone. These are both lifted straight from it. I don't like it, and I love WoW. What's a soul fragment? Where do I keep it? It just feels transparently arbitrary like a game-system whose in-character manifestation is still obviously a game system. This is always a part of an RPG to a varying degree, but I think we can do better. Instead of 'Blood shield', call it 'tranfusion' - you suck the life force from your foe and store it to immediately heal part of any incoming injury, granting temporary damage padding. Instead of 'soul fragments' call it 'animus,' i.e. 'You have absorbed the animus of four victims into your spirit.' These may seem like meaningless changes, but they are subtly different - they (hopefully) show a little more clear effort to weave the game system into the world, as opposed to having it stand as an obvious, one-for-one allegory for the mechanics themselves.
- 740: Sounds good, sound useful, sounds generic. Again, this is not so much a criticism, but rather giving you feedback on how I reacted while reading about the proposed ability. Is there some way to make this feel a little less like sigil of escape? Maybe this would even just boil down to messaging, I dunno.
- 716: I think pestilence should be a cornerstone attack spell for necromancers. As such, I would like to see this spell dramatically impacted by necromancy lore, such that at something like 25/50/75/100 ranks, the necromancer unlocks specific types of disease that have powerful effects. Examples: At 25 ranks, the sorcerer can `incant 716 tumor` - the necromancer's disease inflicts a crippling brain tumor on the victim, giving them a 50% + 1% for every 10 ranks over 25 chance to fail any spell cast. Other effects could be paralysis, then at 75 ranks dementia (the victim immediately attacks a creature in the room aggressive toward the necromancer), and finally at 100 ranks, `toxic shock` - the victim has a chance to instantly die of shock due to the virulence of the disease.
- 730 - Ehhhhh. Like it seems powerful, but it doesn't excite me. I don't have any other ideas off the top of my head for a 30th level spell, but this was my reaction.
- 750 - 30 minutes is too long. If you have to make the cooldown that prohibitive due to the power of the spell, I'd rather the spell be less powerful. Ultra-long cooldowns are, in my opinion, bad design if it's a cool capstone spell, we want to use it, not annihilate some normal critter every half hour with it and then move on. If GS had 'bosses' this would be fine, but in general it doesn't.
Sorry for the WoT, but you asked for feedback! The document looks great overall, thanks for all the hard work.
-
PEA
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/19/2021 11:33 AM CDT
>>- *Blood Shield* / *Soul Fragments*: I mostly wanted to point out the proliferation of WoW abilities in Gemstone. These are both lifted straight from it. I don't like it, and I love WoW. What's a soul fragment? Where do I keep it? It just feels transparently arbitrary like a game-system whose in-character manifestation is still obviously a game system. This is always a part of an RPG to a varying degree, but I think we can do better. Instead of 'Blood shield', call it 'tranfusion' - you suck the life force from your foe and store it to immediately heal part of any incoming injury, granting temporary damage padding. Instead of 'soul fragments' call it 'animus,' i.e. 'You have absorbed the animus of four victims into your spirit.' These may seem like meaningless changes, but they are subtly different - they (hopefully) show a little more clear effort to weave the game system into the world, as opposed to having it stand as an obvious, one-for-one allegory for the mechanics themselves.
100% agree with everything said there. The WoW steals keep growing, and the unique flavor of Gemstone keeps shrinking. I know the 'transfusion'/'animus' concepts were probably off the top of Zennsunni's head, but I already like their flavor better than what's in the proposal doc.
Taking this one step beyond the WoW-specific concerns...
>> I'd personally always kind of viewed player sorcerer's less like traditional fantasy necromancer's, instead having more of an occult/Lovecraft/ or even vooodoo-ey feel to them. Would have preferred to see more of that, since sorcerer's have always had some of the coolest flavor to them. Seems a shame to make them like every other RPG warlock.
This point is well-taken also. I think many of us love Gemstone for what makes it unique from modern fantasy game settings, not just the rote nods to the genre.
Thanks for reading :)
-B
100% agree with everything said there. The WoW steals keep growing, and the unique flavor of Gemstone keeps shrinking. I know the 'transfusion'/'animus' concepts were probably off the top of Zennsunni's head, but I already like their flavor better than what's in the proposal doc.
Taking this one step beyond the WoW-specific concerns...
>> I'd personally always kind of viewed player sorcerer's less like traditional fantasy necromancer's, instead having more of an occult/Lovecraft/ or even vooodoo-ey feel to them. Would have preferred to see more of that, since sorcerer's have always had some of the coolest flavor to them. Seems a shame to make them like every other RPG warlock.
This point is well-taken also. I think many of us love Gemstone for what makes it unique from modern fantasy game settings, not just the rote nods to the genre.
Thanks for reading :)
-B
XRED
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/19/2021 12:53 PM CDT
thank you for the great work so far.
here are some points i'd like to add:
-Spirit and Elemental lore integration: more flavor please, the lores open many vectors for personalization. damage, protection and utility.
Aren't we supposed to be a blend of both spirit and elemental? I see almost zero incentive to learn spirit? all of the lores should offer a compelling branch for sorcerery.
just some ideas:
blessing - healing and defensive
ranks religion - direct damage, crit weighting
ranks spirit summoning - extra time, life and damage to creatures
can they add a crit cycle to DC?
- Shield/brawl casting, can we get a crit bonus for this?
- Shield/weapon - at least can we take the flares of the wapon? dagger for sacifice? if we hold a ritual dager, can we get something for this?
- open hand casting, can we get a massive crit bonus for open hand casting as we forgo defence and flares?
701 can be a blood shield for shield sorcerers
702 - can we get a mass version?
703 - mass version, and does small amount of damage so we get exp from cast
704 - customizable with spirit lores
705 - more crits, more damage with lores,
706 - i just dont get this spell, looks like more complications and more qol issues
707 - great idea but make it persist
708 - can we get a bonus limb with lores? 50 lores = + limb
709 - looks like a nerf
710 - looks good, should do undead damage with spirit lore
711 - potential for knockdown
712 - remove backflare
713 - sorcerers need a +50 higher AS for bolting. MBGA - make bolting great again
714 - please simplify, i'm tired of this spell being so complicated,
715 - needs a major buff, only very old sorcerers have mana to use curse reliably. If sorcerers need to drop a target's td, they just dont hunt those monsters. should swap with 701. make 715 a real blood shield at 715 mana or an attack spell
716 - looks good
717 - reduce +30 TD for mass cast. wizards and warriors when using mass attacks dont get a +50ds penalty. further, with some lore, add some damage so its just not an all or nothing spell.
718 - i like the ideas here
719 - add 3 more damage cycles from spirit lore
720 - looks like a nerf
725 - looks good: please make open cast and refresh, enough with the salts and runetones its horrible
730 - i dont understand this spell: 701 and 710 can be dangerous and slow. if we are casting crapy spells, there should't be a cool down.
740 - group transport for cross realms and cheaper chalk please 5k
750 - looks great: please let it last longer than 60 sec, that is lame, alot of mana and a lot of lore. Why 60 sec? So we can find two monsters? Lets have them last until they die and are refreshable and, turn off their emotes so we dont bother people
SLACKER1
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/19/2021 01:42 PM CDT
>100% agree with everything said there. The WoW steals keep growing, and the unique flavor of Gemstone keeps shrinking. I know the 'transfusion'/'animus' concepts were probably off the top of Zennsunni's head, but I already like their flavor better than what's in the proposal doc.
Fair but I believe in WoW they are soul shards, not fragments. Same deal though.
Also I think 706 sounds very similar to Drain Soul for Warlocks in WoW.
That being said, taking cool mechanics from another game doesn't really bother me as long as they are adjusted to fit the flavor of Gemstone. I don't want a WoW clone in a MUD but I think it's fine to steal some stuff and change it to fit GS flavor.
At this point there are so many games that have fleshed out mechanics for warlocks/necromancers/sorcerers you'd be hard pressed to invent something unique and fun that doesn't seem similar to some other game.
Fair but I believe in WoW they are soul shards, not fragments. Same deal though.
Also I think 706 sounds very similar to Drain Soul for Warlocks in WoW.
That being said, taking cool mechanics from another game doesn't really bother me as long as they are adjusted to fit the flavor of Gemstone. I don't want a WoW clone in a MUD but I think it's fine to steal some stuff and change it to fit GS flavor.
At this point there are so many games that have fleshed out mechanics for warlocks/necromancers/sorcerers you'd be hard pressed to invent something unique and fun that doesn't seem similar to some other game.
ZENNSUNNI
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/19/2021 03:46 PM CDT
>Fair but I believe in WoW they are soul shards, not fragments. Same deal though.
I think we both know a synonym isn't going to fool anyone.
>Also I think 706 sounds very similar to Drain Soul for Warlocks in WoW.
It 100% is similar, but I wasn't positive that it was a blatant ripoff so I didn't mention it. The two I mentioned are transparently taken from WoW, much like 'slice and dice' in the PSM3 document, the Sun/Moon interaction with Rangers, and the list goes on. The WoW appropriations need to stop - this is Elanthia.
I also forgot to mention something that others have touched upon, and that I feel strongly about: Sorcerers should have an open warding spell. If any class should have one, it's sorcerers. Clerics have one, Rangers have an insane one. I actually think 730 was the perfect place to put the 'Ye' Old Sorcerer AOE Warding Spell,' and I think it would be a lot more exciting than the "annihilate-something-every-5-minutes" spell that we currently have in the document.
It would be a real shame, and a missed opportunity, if the sorcerer review fails to rectify the 20-year-old mistake of not giving us an AOE warding attack spell.
I think we both know a synonym isn't going to fool anyone.
>Also I think 706 sounds very similar to Drain Soul for Warlocks in WoW.
It 100% is similar, but I wasn't positive that it was a blatant ripoff so I didn't mention it. The two I mentioned are transparently taken from WoW, much like 'slice and dice' in the PSM3 document, the Sun/Moon interaction with Rangers, and the list goes on. The WoW appropriations need to stop - this is Elanthia.
I also forgot to mention something that others have touched upon, and that I feel strongly about: Sorcerers should have an open warding spell. If any class should have one, it's sorcerers. Clerics have one, Rangers have an insane one. I actually think 730 was the perfect place to put the 'Ye' Old Sorcerer AOE Warding Spell,' and I think it would be a lot more exciting than the "annihilate-something-every-5-minutes" spell that we currently have in the document.
It would be a real shame, and a missed opportunity, if the sorcerer review fails to rectify the 20-year-old mistake of not giving us an AOE warding attack spell.
UNICORN3
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/19/2021 04:18 PM CDT
The drastic shift towards summoning as a profession characteristic isn't what I want, and the blatant ripoffs from WoW just destroy the unique flavor that GS magic and sorcerers had. If I wanted to play a WoW text ripoff, I would just play the real thing.
I don't want DoT or tedious, mediocre plinking via attrition at cap in a text game. Text power and sense of coolness comes from the instant kill, not 20 lines of spam. People in general buy high-end gear and items for their characters so they can aspire to achieve the instant kill, not continue to plink away with the same mediocrity as they were when they were level 2 in rats and had spent nothing.
To take a page from the recent ranger review, 616 has been completely destroyed and 603 is so weak that it took 4 massively warded 603 casts and 2 casts of spike thorn while under the disabling effect, before a level 41 creature died for a capped ranger. When I looked at this spammy scroll, I didn't think wow, so much flavor, how cool! I immediately thought these spells seemed like the totally ineffective underwhelmingness they are and retired my rangers permanently.
Pures need to kill instantly because they are glass cannons and will die if they are sneezed upon, while squares are tanks that easily survive even 20 hits to the head, so the concept of equalizing time to kill and all the recent racial bonus nerfs are complete nonsense and totally destroy the balance we had in this game between squares and pures. People played pures or squares in general because they enjoyed the play style of those classes, and now all we are rapidly tunneling towards is the same cookie cutter homogeneity for every single profession with no class being enjoyable for those who played the professions they played because they liked them as they were.
Any other truly disposable game is infinitely cheaper and less time consuming to progress than GemStone.
I don't want DoT or tedious, mediocre plinking via attrition at cap in a text game. Text power and sense of coolness comes from the instant kill, not 20 lines of spam. People in general buy high-end gear and items for their characters so they can aspire to achieve the instant kill, not continue to plink away with the same mediocrity as they were when they were level 2 in rats and had spent nothing.
To take a page from the recent ranger review, 616 has been completely destroyed and 603 is so weak that it took 4 massively warded 603 casts and 2 casts of spike thorn while under the disabling effect, before a level 41 creature died for a capped ranger. When I looked at this spammy scroll, I didn't think wow, so much flavor, how cool! I immediately thought these spells seemed like the totally ineffective underwhelmingness they are and retired my rangers permanently.
Pures need to kill instantly because they are glass cannons and will die if they are sneezed upon, while squares are tanks that easily survive even 20 hits to the head, so the concept of equalizing time to kill and all the recent racial bonus nerfs are complete nonsense and totally destroy the balance we had in this game between squares and pures. People played pures or squares in general because they enjoyed the play style of those classes, and now all we are rapidly tunneling towards is the same cookie cutter homogeneity for every single profession with no class being enjoyable for those who played the professions they played because they liked them as they were.
Any other truly disposable game is infinitely cheaper and less time consuming to progress than GemStone.
OM1E5GA
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/19/2021 04:22 PM CDT
<blatant ripoffs from WoW>
Diablo was what came to mind for me as I was reading the doc..... but then I never played WoW.
Starchitin, the OG
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
Diablo was what came to mind for me as I was reading the doc..... but then I never played WoW.
Starchitin, the OG
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
KANDOR
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/19/2021 05:40 PM CDT
>Pures need to kill instantly because they are glass cannons and will die if they are sneezed upon, while squares are tanks that easily survive even 20 hits to the head, so the concept of equalizing time to kill and all the recent racial bonus nerfs are complete nonsense and totally destroy the balance we had in this game between squares and pures.
The first part of this sounds about right. But, instead of using it as a premise for the status quo, could it be fixed without creating homogeneity? (It's fine to say no.) I see no reason why pures should be glass cannons, nor any reason why squares should survive 20 hits to the head. That doesn't mean we need to make them similar to address the underlying issues.
>People played pures or squares in general because they enjoyed the play style of those classes, and now all we are rapidly tunneling towards is the same cookie cutter homogeneity for every single profession with no class being enjoyable for those who played the professions they played because they liked them as they were.
I see what you mean. It's possible that some of what attracts players to this game are the same things that other players see as a problem. We had a good discussion about this when 925 was changed, right? Sorcerer players have had a number of grievances over the years. I agree we should be working to address those first. But I believe we can find good solutions without restoring the old version of 711, or 719 (or 519), or whatever.
And this is all going to come up again in the bard review, because they are also glass cannons, and I suspect play-style preferences are going to be impacted.
The first part of this sounds about right. But, instead of using it as a premise for the status quo, could it be fixed without creating homogeneity? (It's fine to say no.) I see no reason why pures should be glass cannons, nor any reason why squares should survive 20 hits to the head. That doesn't mean we need to make them similar to address the underlying issues.
>People played pures or squares in general because they enjoyed the play style of those classes, and now all we are rapidly tunneling towards is the same cookie cutter homogeneity for every single profession with no class being enjoyable for those who played the professions they played because they liked them as they were.
I see what you mean. It's possible that some of what attracts players to this game are the same things that other players see as a problem. We had a good discussion about this when 925 was changed, right? Sorcerer players have had a number of grievances over the years. I agree we should be working to address those first. But I believe we can find good solutions without restoring the old version of 711, or 719 (or 519), or whatever.
And this is all going to come up again in the bard review, because they are also glass cannons, and I suspect play-style preferences are going to be impacted.
DIXON1
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/19/2021 09:12 PM CDT
I just want to say that I'm super duper excited.
MIGHTONS
Re: Feedback Request: Sorcerer Updates
03/19/2021 10:26 PM CDT
>709 - looks like a nerf
After some consideration, I am strongly against SMRv2ing 709 unless it goes through extensive pre-release testing to ensure near identical performance to current state under all circumstances. I hope the SMRv2 system is flexible enough that this can be achieved with sufficient attention to detail.
A reduction in Sorcerer's AOE/crowd control is not a reasonable or fair outcome for this review.
>The big question with 706 is whether or not the duration of the stun is changing from what it is now. If that's gonna be capped at 10 sec, it'll be a pretty big nerf for low/mid level sorcerers.
I agree, I hope a significant duration reduction is not the plan.
>The first part of this sounds about right. But, instead of using it as a premise for the status quo, could it be fixed without creating homogeneity? (It's fine to say no.) I see no reason why pures should be glass cannons, nor any reason why squares should survive 20 hits to the head. That doesn't mean we need to make them similar to address the underlying issues.
I have always liked the asymmetries in this game. I like how different creatures (and professions) have been very resilient against certain attacks and very vulnerable against others. It is good, in my mind, that certain hunting areas or creatures are much more difficult for some professions than for others. Steps that reduce large asymmetric vulnerabilities, or reduce large asymmetric advantages, are a bad thing in my mind.
>And this is all going to come up again in the bard review, because they are also glass cannons, and I suspect play-style preferences are going to be impacted.
Every time we go through this, I lament the seeming sense of inevitability that surrounds these reviews. Why must we keep reviewing things? Surely, in a game this old, in which people have been playing characters a certain way for years or decades, and in which the game as it stands is already very good (we all pay to be here after all), a strong bias towards the status quo is reasonable, and a cautious and measured pace of development is warranted.
There is talk of reviews and balancing being required before moving onto Ascension development, but why must the existing game be changed to accommodate new content? Why can't the new content be balanced around the existing game?
I won't come out entirely against all changes, although I will admit a strong preference for the purely additive - new areas, OSA, Ascension, etc. - over changes to existing game elements. I understand things need to be tweaked, and I will allow that in aggregate, development over the past 5-10 years has had more pros than cons. But the margin is not immense.
I would caution against simply accepting that "play-style preferences are going to be impacted". Just because something works very well, or better than something else, doesn't mean it needs to be nerfed.
I would also caution against assuming that the feedback GMs receive for this, or anything else, is representative. The Discord mechanics chat, for example, despite some negativity from time to time, is likely strongly biased toward the "pro-change" element of the player population. I imagine that many, perhaps the majority of players do not participate significantly. There are undoubtedly many for whom substantial changes to the game of any kind are so unpalatable that reading/discussing/thinking about them is an unpleasant chore. They want to play the game they like, in the manner they have been enjoying it for years.
Lastly, re addressing sorcerer's longstanding grievances... I think we can all agree that a game that just gives you what you want is not fun. It's the struggle to achieve what you want, in the face of opposition, that makes it fun. Addressing grievances in the past has not always made this game better. Again, I am okay with gradual and cautious tweaks to improve the game. I just don't think that "quality of life" changes, or making things easier or less time-consuming, or giving people what they want, always improves the game.
Sorry for the rant. Much of this applies to the PSM3 as well. But it was the questions in this thread that led me down this path. After all is said and done, I do hope Sorcerers get some of what they want, and don't get what they like nerfed. Best of luck.
After some consideration, I am strongly against SMRv2ing 709 unless it goes through extensive pre-release testing to ensure near identical performance to current state under all circumstances. I hope the SMRv2 system is flexible enough that this can be achieved with sufficient attention to detail.
A reduction in Sorcerer's AOE/crowd control is not a reasonable or fair outcome for this review.
>The big question with 706 is whether or not the duration of the stun is changing from what it is now. If that's gonna be capped at 10 sec, it'll be a pretty big nerf for low/mid level sorcerers.
I agree, I hope a significant duration reduction is not the plan.
>The first part of this sounds about right. But, instead of using it as a premise for the status quo, could it be fixed without creating homogeneity? (It's fine to say no.) I see no reason why pures should be glass cannons, nor any reason why squares should survive 20 hits to the head. That doesn't mean we need to make them similar to address the underlying issues.
I have always liked the asymmetries in this game. I like how different creatures (and professions) have been very resilient against certain attacks and very vulnerable against others. It is good, in my mind, that certain hunting areas or creatures are much more difficult for some professions than for others. Steps that reduce large asymmetric vulnerabilities, or reduce large asymmetric advantages, are a bad thing in my mind.
>And this is all going to come up again in the bard review, because they are also glass cannons, and I suspect play-style preferences are going to be impacted.
Every time we go through this, I lament the seeming sense of inevitability that surrounds these reviews. Why must we keep reviewing things? Surely, in a game this old, in which people have been playing characters a certain way for years or decades, and in which the game as it stands is already very good (we all pay to be here after all), a strong bias towards the status quo is reasonable, and a cautious and measured pace of development is warranted.
There is talk of reviews and balancing being required before moving onto Ascension development, but why must the existing game be changed to accommodate new content? Why can't the new content be balanced around the existing game?
I won't come out entirely against all changes, although I will admit a strong preference for the purely additive - new areas, OSA, Ascension, etc. - over changes to existing game elements. I understand things need to be tweaked, and I will allow that in aggregate, development over the past 5-10 years has had more pros than cons. But the margin is not immense.
I would caution against simply accepting that "play-style preferences are going to be impacted". Just because something works very well, or better than something else, doesn't mean it needs to be nerfed.
I would also caution against assuming that the feedback GMs receive for this, or anything else, is representative. The Discord mechanics chat, for example, despite some negativity from time to time, is likely strongly biased toward the "pro-change" element of the player population. I imagine that many, perhaps the majority of players do not participate significantly. There are undoubtedly many for whom substantial changes to the game of any kind are so unpalatable that reading/discussing/thinking about them is an unpleasant chore. They want to play the game they like, in the manner they have been enjoying it for years.
Lastly, re addressing sorcerer's longstanding grievances... I think we can all agree that a game that just gives you what you want is not fun. It's the struggle to achieve what you want, in the face of opposition, that makes it fun. Addressing grievances in the past has not always made this game better. Again, I am okay with gradual and cautious tweaks to improve the game. I just don't think that "quality of life" changes, or making things easier or less time-consuming, or giving people what they want, always improves the game.
Sorry for the rant. Much of this applies to the PSM3 as well. But it was the questions in this thread that led me down this path. After all is said and done, I do hope Sorcerers get some of what they want, and don't get what they like nerfed. Best of luck.
