This circle should have the lowest spell hindrance of any magical circle in the game.
Dgry
GRYPES
DOUG
Re: Armor spell hindrance
08/20/2012 11:36 PM CDT
Not sure I agree. I can explain why I believe Spiritual should have the lowest spell hindrance in the game, but I'm interested in the position.
Why do you feel this way, Dgry?
Doug
Why do you feel this way, Dgry?
Doug
GRYPES
Re: Armor spell hindrance
08/21/2012 12:45 PM CDT
Not sure I agree. I can explain why I believe Spiritual should have the lowest spell hindrance in the game, but I'm interested in the position.
Why do you feel this way, Dgry?
Doug
I'm not going to debate the whole magic versus metal design paradigm that was abandoned/ignored decades ago.
The arcane circle was created as a generic circle for a large amount of leftover spells to be tossed into for general use. Currently, spells within it have varying degrees of hindrance as they're really just leftover spells from other real circles (elemental, old school spirit, some other unknown circles never available to players, etc). This causes anyone with armor higher than full leather a great deal of uncertainty when casting these circle spells from scrolls. Sometimes you get spirit hindrance and sometimes you get elemental hindrance.
I feel that the circle as a whole should be given it's own spell hindrance values to eliminate that uncertainty. Since these spells both require magic items and by extension have associated penalties with them (cost, limited number of uses, weight, etc), and are obviously for the whole population and not just spell casters, I feel that the hindrance should be the lowest of any circle currently in existence.
If you want to argue that pure casters should benefit most from this circle, I won't dispute that. I will, however, state that pure casters do benefit most from this circle already and won't lose any ground by having hindrance made consistent.
Dgry
Why do you feel this way, Dgry?
Doug
I'm not going to debate the whole magic versus metal design paradigm that was abandoned/ignored decades ago.
The arcane circle was created as a generic circle for a large amount of leftover spells to be tossed into for general use. Currently, spells within it have varying degrees of hindrance as they're really just leftover spells from other real circles (elemental, old school spirit, some other unknown circles never available to players, etc). This causes anyone with armor higher than full leather a great deal of uncertainty when casting these circle spells from scrolls. Sometimes you get spirit hindrance and sometimes you get elemental hindrance.
I feel that the circle as a whole should be given it's own spell hindrance values to eliminate that uncertainty. Since these spells both require magic items and by extension have associated penalties with them (cost, limited number of uses, weight, etc), and are obviously for the whole population and not just spell casters, I feel that the hindrance should be the lowest of any circle currently in existence.
If you want to argue that pure casters should benefit most from this circle, I won't dispute that. I will, however, state that pure casters do benefit most from this circle already and won't lose any ground by having hindrance made consistent.
Dgry
IRVINETOMOE
Re: Armor spell hindrance
08/21/2012 12:49 PM CDT
I don't know if I'm for or against making it the "lowest" hindrance in the game, but I do support making it consistant. The concept had never occured to me, but if I have a pure spiritualist in double leathers, the concept of spell failure would be unlikely to cross my mind if I was not casting from an elemental circle. I would not necessarily know which is which if I were using one of these spells.
LUGUBRIOUS1
Re: Armor spell hindrance
08/21/2012 02:21 PM CDT
>I feel that the circle as a whole should be given it's own spell hindrance values to eliminate that uncertainty.
I personally think it would be much more hilarious if regardless of wearing or not wearing armor the chance for EVERY spell in the entire arcane circle would simply be:
RND(100)
I personally think it would be much more hilarious if regardless of wearing or not wearing armor the chance for EVERY spell in the entire arcane circle would simply be:
RND(100)
DOUG
Re: Armor spell hindrance
08/22/2012 12:12 AM CDT
>> I'm not going to debate the whole magic versus metal design paradigm that was abandoned/ignored decades ago.
Curious comment -- I suspect it was refined, not abandoned. But I don't have a lot of passion about the point, so I will just slightly disagree on that one.
>>I feel that the circle as a whole should be given it's own spell hindrance values to eliminate that uncertainty. Since these spells both require magic items and by extension have associated penalties with them (cost, limited number of uses, weight, etc), and are obviously for the whole population and not just spell casters, I feel that the hindrance should be the lowest of any circle currently in existence.
TL;DR Summary -- Agree to the consistency part of the discussion. I believe that all spell circles have items / scrolls and so the 'whole population' side of this isn't as supportive an argument in my view. As regards the basic premise, I feel the opposite, Arcane spells are the rawest and least refined of the spell circles; the 'progenitors' of all other spell circles, which have been refined and should work better. So, I would say the Arcane circle should be the highest of any circle in existence. But it is just one opinion.
No argument against consistency. Would support that, irrespective. It's kind of like Miller Light, always the right call (unless you really like beer).
I'd remove magic items (not scrolls) from the discussion since item activation is not managed by spell failure -- with the exception of the lenses. And frankly, I like the fact that a magic item casts a spell that allows you to cast a spell -- which should be subject to (consistent) spell failure rules.
I'll even go as far as to suggest that when you use 1750, and cast a spiritual spell -- I would expect the spell hindrance to be consistent with the spiritual spell circle. I think this is actually how it is designed, as well.
As far as the entire discussion about who benefits -- I feel less passionate about it than you seem to feel. My passion for that debate is tempered because I realize that all spell circles have this going on to a greater or lesser degree (items / scrolls). I do agree however that the rules should be consistent, and that the circles themselves should be consistent. Items should activate off of MIU, and the spell is cast without regard to hindrance. Scrolls should activate based off of AS, but since the spell is being cast the normal hindrance rules should apply.
As to the difficulty, I would posit that spell hindrance, a measure of the likelihood of successfully casting a spell based on the class of armor you're wearing (whether it has metal in it or not) should affect each spell circle differently.
I would suggest the restrictive movement / composition of material / barrier to gathering energies (the aforementioned refinement to the thought of magic versus metal) to successfully cast a spell from a given circle should be ordered from least affected to most as follows:
Spiritual
Mental
Hybrid (Sorcerer)
Wizard
Arcane
My reason is simple -- the key is drawing the energy and commanding it. Spiritual users pray / swear. Their spells are 'granted' based on their affiliation. Easiest of the group of spells to cast from a movement / composition / barrier (hindrance) perspective. Mental needs less movement, but the barriers to gathering energies is a bit higher. Sorcerers split the difference (spirit as spirit, elemental as elemental and sorcerer as a deadly mix of the two). Wizards are most restricted, since wizards need both the ability to gather external energies, and require freedom of movement to command the spell shaping.
Why is Arcane the most challenged in my view? Simply because Arcane spells (despite the implementation effect of the 'leftovers tossed in for use') actually represent the rawest and least disciplined way of gathering energies and using them. Wizards have at least 'improved' their capabilities to account for the activities needed to cast spells. Arcane magic does not have these improvements factored in. It's sheer, raw power. And one would want maximum freedom and flexibility in the gathering and proper shaping of such energies.
It totally justifies, to me, the reason for the existence of 1750 -- raw power shaped and then cast out in the form of a 'more refined' process to get a 'more cultured' spell effect.
I readily submit that this is simply one opinion, though -- not suggesting it is any better than your position, Dgry. Just a different one.
Doug
Curious comment -- I suspect it was refined, not abandoned. But I don't have a lot of passion about the point, so I will just slightly disagree on that one.
>>I feel that the circle as a whole should be given it's own spell hindrance values to eliminate that uncertainty. Since these spells both require magic items and by extension have associated penalties with them (cost, limited number of uses, weight, etc), and are obviously for the whole population and not just spell casters, I feel that the hindrance should be the lowest of any circle currently in existence.
TL;DR Summary -- Agree to the consistency part of the discussion. I believe that all spell circles have items / scrolls and so the 'whole population' side of this isn't as supportive an argument in my view. As regards the basic premise, I feel the opposite, Arcane spells are the rawest and least refined of the spell circles; the 'progenitors' of all other spell circles, which have been refined and should work better. So, I would say the Arcane circle should be the highest of any circle in existence. But it is just one opinion.
No argument against consistency. Would support that, irrespective. It's kind of like Miller Light, always the right call (unless you really like beer).
I'd remove magic items (not scrolls) from the discussion since item activation is not managed by spell failure -- with the exception of the lenses. And frankly, I like the fact that a magic item casts a spell that allows you to cast a spell -- which should be subject to (consistent) spell failure rules.
I'll even go as far as to suggest that when you use 1750, and cast a spiritual spell -- I would expect the spell hindrance to be consistent with the spiritual spell circle. I think this is actually how it is designed, as well.
As far as the entire discussion about who benefits -- I feel less passionate about it than you seem to feel. My passion for that debate is tempered because I realize that all spell circles have this going on to a greater or lesser degree (items / scrolls). I do agree however that the rules should be consistent, and that the circles themselves should be consistent. Items should activate off of MIU, and the spell is cast without regard to hindrance. Scrolls should activate based off of AS, but since the spell is being cast the normal hindrance rules should apply.
As to the difficulty, I would posit that spell hindrance, a measure of the likelihood of successfully casting a spell based on the class of armor you're wearing (whether it has metal in it or not) should affect each spell circle differently.
I would suggest the restrictive movement / composition of material / barrier to gathering energies (the aforementioned refinement to the thought of magic versus metal) to successfully cast a spell from a given circle should be ordered from least affected to most as follows:
Spiritual
Mental
Hybrid (Sorcerer)
Wizard
Arcane
My reason is simple -- the key is drawing the energy and commanding it. Spiritual users pray / swear. Their spells are 'granted' based on their affiliation. Easiest of the group of spells to cast from a movement / composition / barrier (hindrance) perspective. Mental needs less movement, but the barriers to gathering energies is a bit higher. Sorcerers split the difference (spirit as spirit, elemental as elemental and sorcerer as a deadly mix of the two). Wizards are most restricted, since wizards need both the ability to gather external energies, and require freedom of movement to command the spell shaping.
Why is Arcane the most challenged in my view? Simply because Arcane spells (despite the implementation effect of the 'leftovers tossed in for use') actually represent the rawest and least disciplined way of gathering energies and using them. Wizards have at least 'improved' their capabilities to account for the activities needed to cast spells. Arcane magic does not have these improvements factored in. It's sheer, raw power. And one would want maximum freedom and flexibility in the gathering and proper shaping of such energies.
It totally justifies, to me, the reason for the existence of 1750 -- raw power shaped and then cast out in the form of a 'more refined' process to get a 'more cultured' spell effect.
I readily submit that this is simply one opinion, though -- not suggesting it is any better than your position, Dgry. Just a different one.
Doug
RATHBONER
Re: Armor spell hindrance
08/22/2012 09:02 AM CDT
>Why is Arcane the most challenged in my view? Simply because Arcane spells (despite the implementation effect of the 'leftovers tossed in for use') actually represent the rawest and least disciplined way of gathering energies and using them. Wizards have at least 'improved' their capabilities to account for the activities needed to cast spells. Arcane magic does not have these improvements factored in. It's sheer, raw power. And one would want maximum freedom and flexibility in the gathering and proper shaping of such energies.
I regard this as being why they are normally found in items. Its a pain to try and use them any other way. I'd tend to agree it should be consistent, and also consistently high.
GRYPES
Re: Armor spell hindrance
08/22/2012 12:46 PM CDT
Why is Arcane the most challenged in my view? Simply because Arcane spells (despite the implementation effect of the 'leftovers tossed in for use') actually represent the rawest and least disciplined way of gathering energies and using them.
Doug
I think this is the fundamental difference in our discussion on this issue. You see the arcane circle as something that was implemented with forethought and planning. I see the arcane circle as something that was thrown together from a bunch of leftovers.
If I viewed the circle the way you do, I might support your view, I don't. Since I don't, my proposal is more along the lines of.. Since you threw together the implementation on this system and the apparent goal of it was to benefit the entire game population, you should at least make it consistent and easier to use for the entire population.
If I supported your view, then I'd actually argue for the current system as the circle contains spells from different circles. I'd also expect varying degrees of spell hindrance within any given circle depending on the spell being cast. My chart would look like this...
Mental
Hybrid (spiritual/mental)
Divine
Spiritual
Hybrid (Sorcerer)
Elemental
Wizard
Arcane roughly being an average of the highest and lowest hindrances
Mental being the lowest because the magic is tied to the body, and several "mental" spells would never actually need to travel through armor. The rest pretty much follows your train of thought, but honestly all sense of balance of GS's magic system was thrown out of whack with the mucking of spiritual/mental spheres.
You may ask why I'm so convinced that the arcane circle was slapped together. It's due to the fact that no apparent thought was given to things like spell hindrance, AS/DS checks, CS/TD checks for the spells on the list. I doubt any profession/training bonuses were removed from spells when they were added to the list from their original states. No work has been done on the circle since release other than nerfage of chargeability (excluding some of the newer spells that some GMs probably felt a connection with), and long-standing issues not being resolved. See: how do I actually use this bronze square in combat? What's the point of rubbing this granite triangle that may or may not flare in it's short duration? Why won't 1701 work for mass dispel? Why do creatures still run from clouds now that they're limited use items? Why weren't spells on the list put on a generic AS/DS/CS/TD system?
I could be wrong, maybe a lot of thought was put into the circle, but I'm highly doubtful. I wasn't expecting much to result from my original post as I don't think the arcane circle is on anyone's agenda. I think someone saw a bunch of unused spells one day and decided they could be put to use (props for that - making use of something rather than letting it sit around unused), but I thought I'd toss out the suggestion anyway.
Dgry
Doug
I think this is the fundamental difference in our discussion on this issue. You see the arcane circle as something that was implemented with forethought and planning. I see the arcane circle as something that was thrown together from a bunch of leftovers.
If I viewed the circle the way you do, I might support your view, I don't. Since I don't, my proposal is more along the lines of.. Since you threw together the implementation on this system and the apparent goal of it was to benefit the entire game population, you should at least make it consistent and easier to use for the entire population.
If I supported your view, then I'd actually argue for the current system as the circle contains spells from different circles. I'd also expect varying degrees of spell hindrance within any given circle depending on the spell being cast. My chart would look like this...
Mental
Hybrid (spiritual/mental)
Divine
Spiritual
Hybrid (Sorcerer)
Elemental
Wizard
Arcane roughly being an average of the highest and lowest hindrances
Mental being the lowest because the magic is tied to the body, and several "mental" spells would never actually need to travel through armor. The rest pretty much follows your train of thought, but honestly all sense of balance of GS's magic system was thrown out of whack with the mucking of spiritual/mental spheres.
You may ask why I'm so convinced that the arcane circle was slapped together. It's due to the fact that no apparent thought was given to things like spell hindrance, AS/DS checks, CS/TD checks for the spells on the list. I doubt any profession/training bonuses were removed from spells when they were added to the list from their original states. No work has been done on the circle since release other than nerfage of chargeability (excluding some of the newer spells that some GMs probably felt a connection with), and long-standing issues not being resolved. See: how do I actually use this bronze square in combat? What's the point of rubbing this granite triangle that may or may not flare in it's short duration? Why won't 1701 work for mass dispel? Why do creatures still run from clouds now that they're limited use items? Why weren't spells on the list put on a generic AS/DS/CS/TD system?
I could be wrong, maybe a lot of thought was put into the circle, but I'm highly doubtful. I wasn't expecting much to result from my original post as I don't think the arcane circle is on anyone's agenda. I think someone saw a bunch of unused spells one day and decided they could be put to use (props for that - making use of something rather than letting it sit around unused), but I thought I'd toss out the suggestion anyway.
Dgry
GS4-ESTILD
Re: Armor spell hindrance
08/22/2012 01:58 PM CDT
| Dgry |
| You may ask why I'm so convinced that the arcane circle was slapped together. It's due to the fact that no apparent thought was given to things like spell hindrance, AS/DS checks, CS/TD checks for the spells on the list. I doubt any profession/training bonuses were removed from spells when they were added to the list from their original states. No work has been done on the circle since release other than nerfage of chargeability (excluding some of the newer spells that some GMs probably felt a connection with), and long-standing issues not being resolved. See: how do I actually use this bronze square in combat? What's the point of rubbing this granite triangle that may or may not flare in it's short duration? Why won't 1701 work for mass dispel? Why do creatures still run from clouds now that they're limited use items? Why weren't spells on the list put on a generic AS/DS/CS/TD system? |
| I could be wrong, maybe a lot of thought was put into the circle, but I'm highly doubtful. I wasn't expecting much to result from my original post as I don't think the arcane circle is on anyone's agenda. I think someone saw a bunch of unused spells one day and decided they could be put to use (props for that - making use of something rather than letting it sit around unused), but I thought I'd toss out the suggestion anyway. |
The Arcane circle is a combination of random spells and newly designed spells. Any existing spell was updated to match new standards and spells like Stun Cloud (1704) don't factor in Wizard spell ranks, etc. Many spells such as Arcane Decoy (1701), Mystic Impedance (1708), Arcane Barrier (1720), and Fash'lo'nae's Gift (1750) were completely new. Spells in the circle can be native to another circle and this information is listed on the website. If a spell is native to a circle, it makes it easier to activate based upon your knowledge of that circle and it uses the same spell hindrance. Spells which are not native any circle use a separate table for spell hindrance. The spell hindrance issue isn't an oversight; we intentionally designed it the way it is.
GameMaster Estild
DOUG
Re: Armor spell hindrance
08/22/2012 11:38 PM CDT
>> My chart would look like this...
Other than the slight disparity between our positions on spiritual versus mental, I'd agree with your chart. I see (believe) that you broke it down beyond spheres of magic to spell lists, inclusive of the concept of minor / major / profession. More comprehensive, and I like the progression -- absent the one point about spiritual versus mental.
Like it a lot.
Doug
Other than the slight disparity between our positions on spiritual versus mental, I'd agree with your chart. I see (believe) that you broke it down beyond spheres of magic to spell lists, inclusive of the concept of minor / major / profession. More comprehensive, and I like the progression -- absent the one point about spiritual versus mental.
Like it a lot.
Doug
GRYPES
Re: Armor spell hindrance
08/26/2012 03:51 PM CDT
The Arcane circle is a combination of random spells and newly designed spells. Any existing spell was updated to match new standards and spells like Stun Cloud (1704) don't factor in Wizard spell ranks, etc. Many spells such as Arcane Decoy (1701), Mystic Impedance (1708), Arcane Barrier (1720), and Fash'lo'nae's Gift (1750) were completely new. Spells in the circle can be native to another circle and this information is listed on the website. If a spell is native to a circle, it makes it easier to activate based upon your knowledge of that circle and it uses the same spell hindrance. Spells which are not native any circle use a separate table for spell hindrance. The spell hindrance issue isn't an oversight; we intentionally designed it the way it is.
GameMaster Estild
Yeah...
I'm gonna have to go with skepticism over anything being intentionally designed with this circle. I don't doubt effort was put into designing the new spells, but all I see with the old spells is patchwork. In my experience, people take ownership of new releases and maintain them for a period of time post-release before losing interest if they invested effort into the release. I can't say I saw that at all with this circle's releases. I definitely haven't seen any attempt to address the issues people have found or the suggestions that were made. All I've really seen with this circle post-release was a nerfing of 1750.
Issues I've seen reported or suggested to date...
-1701 doesn't work vs. multiple dispel (seem to remember it not working against untargetted dispels too, like darkstone)
-1704/1713/1715 still causes things to flee and are nearly pointless to use
-1706's really short duration and infrequent cycles, as well as not properly turning off in certain places in town
-1718 squares can't be used without an empty hand, which means people using two-handed weapons get their AS cut in half, and people with one handers can't use shields/other weapons
Those are really just the things I remember, I'm sure there's more buried in this topic.
Dgry
GameMaster Estild
Yeah...
I'm gonna have to go with skepticism over anything being intentionally designed with this circle. I don't doubt effort was put into designing the new spells, but all I see with the old spells is patchwork. In my experience, people take ownership of new releases and maintain them for a period of time post-release before losing interest if they invested effort into the release. I can't say I saw that at all with this circle's releases. I definitely haven't seen any attempt to address the issues people have found or the suggestions that were made. All I've really seen with this circle post-release was a nerfing of 1750.
Issues I've seen reported or suggested to date...
-1701 doesn't work vs. multiple dispel (seem to remember it not working against untargetted dispels too, like darkstone)
-1704/1713/1715 still causes things to flee and are nearly pointless to use
-1706's really short duration and infrequent cycles, as well as not properly turning off in certain places in town
-1718 squares can't be used without an empty hand, which means people using two-handed weapons get their AS cut in half, and people with one handers can't use shields/other weapons
Those are really just the things I remember, I'm sure there's more buried in this topic.
Dgry
IRVINETOMOE
Re: Armor spell hindrance
08/27/2012 04:09 AM CDT
I can see the logic in wanting the arcane circle's spells to have unique hindrances, but its an extremely . . . frustrating concept.
Is it possible that we could get a list of what spell circles each spell is native to? So it can be recorded for future reference.
Is it possible that we could get a list of what spell circles each spell is native to? So it can be recorded for future reference.
GS4-VANAH
Re: Armor spell hindrance
08/27/2012 06:11 AM CDT
>Is it possible that we could get a list of what spell circles each spell is native to? So it can be recorded for future reference.
Spell nativity is posted with the spell descriptions on the official website: http://www.play.net/gs4/info/spells/spelllist.asp?circle=14
There is also discussion about it on krakiipedia: http://www.krakiipedia.org/wiki/Arcane_spells_(saved_post)
~Vanah
Spell nativity is posted with the spell descriptions on the official website: http://www.play.net/gs4/info/spells/spelllist.asp?circle=14
There is also discussion about it on krakiipedia: http://www.krakiipedia.org/wiki/Arcane_spells_(saved_post)
~Vanah
