Previous
> I would think that adding something to Minor Cold would be a good idea, as making water mages force cast a higher DF variant every time for the same cost would be unpalatable.
I agree with you here and while, like Estild said, we currently don't have anything attached to this it is definitely on my mind and something I'm thinking about.
For what it's worth, it's pretty easy for a water mage to grab the necessary air lore to be able to forcibly cast CoE under lightning. Solution? Nope. I know it isn't, but I'll throw it out there for now. :)
~ Konacon
GS4-KONACON
LADYFLEUR
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 03:28 PM CDT
>When did they lose Ewave and Major Ewave? Also.. what Cleric/Empath/Sorc that swings or shoots or hurls, uses 117 every swing?
Level based disablers that give RT/minor damage are not at all the same as CS-based disablers that stun outright or cause mass damage. Try using 410 or 435 in the Scatter as a level 100 character and see how well that works for you.
>Also.. how is a CS spell a "Guarantee"? They can't ever be warded?
No, given the right training, enhancives, and boosters such as 240, any creatures are guaranteed to fall under the effects of said CS-based spell. In contrast, excessive bolt AS vs. DS is unlikely to result in a guaranteed kill.
Level based disablers that give RT/minor damage are not at all the same as CS-based disablers that stun outright or cause mass damage. Try using 410 or 435 in the Scatter as a level 100 character and see how well that works for you.
>Also.. how is a CS spell a "Guarantee"? They can't ever be warded?
No, given the right training, enhancives, and boosters such as 240, any creatures are guaranteed to fall under the effects of said CS-based spell. In contrast, excessive bolt AS vs. DS is unlikely to result in a guaranteed kill.
BLACKKOBOLD
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 03:29 PM CDT
<Things change.
We'll see.
<You're assuming fire lore will be a requirement for the baseline benefit of the spell. If anything I would argue that I'm being more considerate of a broader range of the wizard population <than those looking to preserve their current builds. I've no intention of simply confirming a 202 fire lore build and checking a box before turning this over.
Yes, the fire lore change would appear to do that taken by itself. But either you are ignoring the fact that low-mid level wizards can't rely on a 19 mana spell with a low crit kill rate and low damage/mana or you know something I don't with regard to the upcoming ELR changes that will change this situation somehow. Again, we'll see. As it stands, if you dropped this new immolation into the game I think you'll find that it barely gets used by low-mid range wizards just as we see with the current spell. The cost is too high, so while the changes are ostensibly a benefit to that lower level range, because the cost remains restrictive this spell will still be relegated primarily to high level use where the nerfs are most severe. That is why I say despite your efforts, immolate taken by itself cannot realistically be considered a lateral shift.
<I said at the beginning you guys had an opportunity to have a voice into the change, that should be glaringly obvious now. If at the end of the ELR nothing has really changed beyond minor, <undesired, lore tweaks then I would feel like the whole thing would have been wasted effort on everyone's part. If at the end we've a lateral shift in power with additional diversity, flavor, <and training thresholds as well as an abundance of balanced suggestions that we can use to fill in some of the perceived-short comings, then I feel like that would be a significant win.
Unfortunately, your definition of a "lateral shift" is not consistent with reality. And I expect you will see that if you roll out these changes. But as you are privy to the full scope of the ELR as I am not, I guess I'll have to wait and see what game-changers you produce. As I said, as it stands this is not a lateral shift because the people you purport to benefit will not benefit anywhere near as much as the people you're taking away from will lose. The only way that's going to change is if the ELR includes better support for a CS specialization within the wizard class that does not rely on immolate as its centerpiece. As of right now that range of spells does not exist.
<You guys are getting caught up in preserving status quo though, and I've been singing the same tune from the start. If 506, 515, and 519 were to disappear tomorrow, what would you want in <their place? You (as a class) have never fully answered that question I asked on day 1, but we have 500+ tweak suggestions to 506/515.
Never say never, Viduus. Particularly when you're flat out wrong. Have you not heard me expound upon the shortcomings of bolt spells, complete with suggestions on how to change them? Is the double-cast effect not a completely different animal than 0 RT? What about the numerous suggestions for variable RT? Numerous questions regarding the possibility of aimed bolts? Of temporary flaring and other ideas to boost war mages in the absence of haste?
Further, you (the devs) have ASKED us for alternative suggestions on 506/515/519. Are you surprised that we answered you? Cmon, man!
<I saw 950 as a really nice addition to offset some of 506's current benefits, both defensively and offensively. That didn't originate from a player on this forum after the prompting - but <it could have - again missed opportunity because the focus is misdirected.
Really? You saw a 50 mana spell with a 1x/day cooldown as a potential way to offset the changes to 506? You've lost me there. What did you have in mind?
<You mentioning needing additional CS spells for a CS build, when, where, what, how? Clerics only have 2 staples (302/317) why do you need more than that?
Err, I guess if you like clerics this sounds great? In my opinion, clerics are probably the most boring class out there, offensively. Are you really going to use them as your model? Seriously, when 319 was released I was thinking: "Really? You're going to give them a defensive "I-WIN!" button when they only have 2 spells making up their offensive core? Yeah, I think it's a horrible design. YMMV.
<I knew this would be coming. We had plans, you claimed to know better, so now you've the spotlight. It doesn't have to be your job, but if you want to eat at the table you should probably <at least pick up the spoon. So what's it going to be, same old song and dance or what?
Then be more communicative. When I post a suggestion. Comment on it. So far nearly every response from Estild has been basically "This part of the idea is a non-starter". Fine. But how about you tell me what has potential, too? I want to work some form of faster bolt casting into the idea and I want it to have different effects across the range of bolts to give each bolt a different purpose. So far all I'm getting is "No, RT reduction bad". So what about the rest of it? Good? Bad? Too powerful? Too weak? Give me a better idea of what you want to do and I'll rework the idea around those parameters. But telling me "No" and then complaining that all I want is to keep everything the same is just nonsense.
I've done that for you. Meet me half way! The first proposal for rapid fire was basically the same one I came up with, but with a cooldown. I don't like the cooldown. I told you so, but as the rest of the idea was the same as one of my own proposals you already knew I was okay with that part. Back to the drawing board. The latest proposal I like even less. The mana cost is too high, the benefit too short. It's situational use, which I'm not opposed to but as I said I would prefer we find a way to have some form of faster casting as a full uptime ability. It doesn't necessarily need to be 100% chance, however. It could be a chance on cast, or a reactive proc, etc.
How about actually telling me what you like and go into some detail? These one-line responses to pages and pages of ideas are pretty useless to me and make it seem as if you don't really want to have this conversation at all.
~Taverkin
We'll see.
<You're assuming fire lore will be a requirement for the baseline benefit of the spell. If anything I would argue that I'm being more considerate of a broader range of the wizard population <than those looking to preserve their current builds. I've no intention of simply confirming a 202 fire lore build and checking a box before turning this over.
Yes, the fire lore change would appear to do that taken by itself. But either you are ignoring the fact that low-mid level wizards can't rely on a 19 mana spell with a low crit kill rate and low damage/mana or you know something I don't with regard to the upcoming ELR changes that will change this situation somehow. Again, we'll see. As it stands, if you dropped this new immolation into the game I think you'll find that it barely gets used by low-mid range wizards just as we see with the current spell. The cost is too high, so while the changes are ostensibly a benefit to that lower level range, because the cost remains restrictive this spell will still be relegated primarily to high level use where the nerfs are most severe. That is why I say despite your efforts, immolate taken by itself cannot realistically be considered a lateral shift.
<I said at the beginning you guys had an opportunity to have a voice into the change, that should be glaringly obvious now. If at the end of the ELR nothing has really changed beyond minor, <undesired, lore tweaks then I would feel like the whole thing would have been wasted effort on everyone's part. If at the end we've a lateral shift in power with additional diversity, flavor, <and training thresholds as well as an abundance of balanced suggestions that we can use to fill in some of the perceived-short comings, then I feel like that would be a significant win.
Unfortunately, your definition of a "lateral shift" is not consistent with reality. And I expect you will see that if you roll out these changes. But as you are privy to the full scope of the ELR as I am not, I guess I'll have to wait and see what game-changers you produce. As I said, as it stands this is not a lateral shift because the people you purport to benefit will not benefit anywhere near as much as the people you're taking away from will lose. The only way that's going to change is if the ELR includes better support for a CS specialization within the wizard class that does not rely on immolate as its centerpiece. As of right now that range of spells does not exist.
<You guys are getting caught up in preserving status quo though, and I've been singing the same tune from the start. If 506, 515, and 519 were to disappear tomorrow, what would you want in <their place? You (as a class) have never fully answered that question I asked on day 1, but we have 500+ tweak suggestions to 506/515.
Never say never, Viduus. Particularly when you're flat out wrong. Have you not heard me expound upon the shortcomings of bolt spells, complete with suggestions on how to change them? Is the double-cast effect not a completely different animal than 0 RT? What about the numerous suggestions for variable RT? Numerous questions regarding the possibility of aimed bolts? Of temporary flaring and other ideas to boost war mages in the absence of haste?
Further, you (the devs) have ASKED us for alternative suggestions on 506/515/519. Are you surprised that we answered you? Cmon, man!
<I saw 950 as a really nice addition to offset some of 506's current benefits, both defensively and offensively. That didn't originate from a player on this forum after the prompting - but <it could have - again missed opportunity because the focus is misdirected.
Really? You saw a 50 mana spell with a 1x/day cooldown as a potential way to offset the changes to 506? You've lost me there. What did you have in mind?
<You mentioning needing additional CS spells for a CS build, when, where, what, how? Clerics only have 2 staples (302/317) why do you need more than that?
Err, I guess if you like clerics this sounds great? In my opinion, clerics are probably the most boring class out there, offensively. Are you really going to use them as your model? Seriously, when 319 was released I was thinking: "Really? You're going to give them a defensive "I-WIN!" button when they only have 2 spells making up their offensive core? Yeah, I think it's a horrible design. YMMV.
<I knew this would be coming. We had plans, you claimed to know better, so now you've the spotlight. It doesn't have to be your job, but if you want to eat at the table you should probably <at least pick up the spoon. So what's it going to be, same old song and dance or what?
Then be more communicative. When I post a suggestion. Comment on it. So far nearly every response from Estild has been basically "This part of the idea is a non-starter". Fine. But how about you tell me what has potential, too? I want to work some form of faster bolt casting into the idea and I want it to have different effects across the range of bolts to give each bolt a different purpose. So far all I'm getting is "No, RT reduction bad". So what about the rest of it? Good? Bad? Too powerful? Too weak? Give me a better idea of what you want to do and I'll rework the idea around those parameters. But telling me "No" and then complaining that all I want is to keep everything the same is just nonsense.
I've done that for you. Meet me half way! The first proposal for rapid fire was basically the same one I came up with, but with a cooldown. I don't like the cooldown. I told you so, but as the rest of the idea was the same as one of my own proposals you already knew I was okay with that part. Back to the drawing board. The latest proposal I like even less. The mana cost is too high, the benefit too short. It's situational use, which I'm not opposed to but as I said I would prefer we find a way to have some form of faster casting as a full uptime ability. It doesn't necessarily need to be 100% chance, however. It could be a chance on cast, or a reactive proc, etc.
How about actually telling me what you like and go into some detail? These one-line responses to pages and pages of ideas are pretty useless to me and make it seem as if you don't really want to have this conversation at all.
~Taverkin
KEITHOBAD
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 03:32 PM CDT
925- Can we please see an improvement for all active wizards with regards to temper times? This spell is a dinosaur.
Also, let the wizard use gear while it's tempering.
506- It's very difficult to answer your question Viduus because anything that gives wizards a melee combat boost while out of haste would be OP while hasted. But if you were to say, "haste no longer exists" then wizards would need serious offensive and defensive upgrades. 6% post-hit vibe flares ain't gonna cut it. We need real critical/stun mitigation so that if we get hit during a 5sec round time (which will happen!) we aren't insta-gibbed. No one else is swinging in soft leathers except maybe post-cap rogues in robes who are using hiding as mitigation.
One idea I just had would be similar to the weapon fire idea but it would charge up the weapon on a 4-5sec timer so that when out of haste it would proc 100% of the time, but while hasted you would only see flares 1/5 hits.
As for defensive options, changing 520 to act more like iron skin is one way. Or decreasing spell hindrance so warmages could wear heavier armor.
Also increasing the % value on 520 vibe crits and having it proc BEFORE the attack resolves would go a long way to making it better.
But really, as a warmage it's extremely difficult to justify lore training before ~60-70 because CM is so expensive and necesary for the AS. Giving us a consistent AS booster on the lore track akin to CM (ie: +0.5AS/rank) would go a long way towards bringing some of the other lore benefits within reach. Right now I have no choice but to put all my TPs into CM if only for the AS.
BLACKKOBOLD
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 03:35 PM CDT
<Have you ever accidentally incanted a wizard spell with no critters in the room?
Sorry, bud. You're a little off on this one. You can safely use incant <bolt spell> and cut out the double commands. The removal of re-prep mechanics is 100% advantage, no disadvantage.
~Taverkin
Sorry, bud. You're a little off on this one. You can safely use incant <bolt spell> and cut out the double commands. The removal of re-prep mechanics is 100% advantage, no disadvantage.
~Taverkin
BLACKKOBOLD
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 03:37 PM CDT
<There is a disparity, but there are also lore benefits from the individual spells to consider. Minor Fire probably has one of the better ones for possible bolts in 518. I don't think we have <anything currently planned for Minor Cold, but we can certainly look at adding something to try to offset its lower damage factor.
Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that cone of elements is going to use the DF of lower level bolts rather than the DF of major shock? So like casting cone of fire will use 906 DF, but casting cone of lightning or cone of uhh boulders uses 910/510, respectively?
~Taverkin
Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that cone of elements is going to use the DF of lower level bolts rather than the DF of major shock? So like casting cone of fire will use 906 DF, but casting cone of lightning or cone of uhh boulders uses 910/510, respectively?
~Taverkin
ERYKK2
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 03:40 PM CDT
| You don't always get what you want and it's also a matter of time. Some of these suggestions have been made in the last week. I mean sure, I could ask Viduus and the others to stop working on some of the other lore updates if you really want them to focus on making 512 more similar to 112 instead of 909, or lore bonuses that grant more damage from 425 or more AS from 513. More so, as I have repeated time and time again, this isn't a spell review. Stone Skin could definitely use some updates, but that doesn't mean we can't add an extra benefit to it right now. Lastly, I'm not sure how you claim we ignored you on any of the Haste updates when we haven't even announced what revisions we're making. |
I realize we don't always get what we want, believe me, we're all well aware of that at this point.
I also don't expect you to instantly add any of the suggestions. But you could acknowledge any suggestion that would be possible/likely/approved for future addition.
You said you were doing additions that didn't take any time, I assumed a copy/paste from 112 to 512 would be something along those lines.
I do think all lore updates should be stopped, if instead, a spell review could be done. I don't understand why they weren't planned to be completed together in the first place. You're essentially adding things that may change anyway during a spell review (520 for example), so why waste time doing them? I would gladly give up reactive flares for the spell to gain useful benefits, such as those we've sugggested.
When it comes to haste, I didn't see any comment in response to the suggestions we posted, so in effect, they were ignored.
| You do realize summation favors lower level characters? You get more benefits for less ranks. The higher you go up, the less benefit you get. They favor lower rank investment and thus lower level characters. |
Then perhaps I should say the base effect is too small instead of saying the lore seeds are too high. 7% at 91 ranks or 12% at 186 ranks is not a worthy benefit. Especially when I look at other spells such as 716 which start at base 25% retribution AND work even if you're not hit.
GS4-KONACON
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 03:40 PM CDT
> Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that cone of elements is going to use the DF of lower level bolts rather than the DF of major shock? So like casting cone of fire will use 906 DF, but casting cone of lightning or cone of uhh boulders uses 910/510, respectively?
This is correct. If it turns out to be an issue once the ELR is over and all of the respective spells that CoE uses have had their updates and it's not as strong it is going to get looked at.
~ Konacon
This is correct. If it turns out to be an issue once the ELR is over and all of the respective spells that CoE uses have had their updates and it's not as strong it is going to get looked at.
~ Konacon
KRAKII
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 03:41 PM CDT
"You're comparing the base functionality of one spell to the lore benefit of another. In general, the latter is intended to be a small bonus and usually to the degree that it won't significantly affect combat. There are exceptions, but in general, that's how lores should work." -- Estild
Given that the "base functionality" of Stone Skin/520 sucks @#()*&@# compared to Wall of Thorns or Pestilence, I figured I was throwing you-the-designers a bone by including the chance of flare in. That just means that the spell sucks in multiple ways when compared to those two, is all.
Given that the "base functionality" of Stone Skin/520 sucks @#()*&@# compared to Wall of Thorns or Pestilence, I figured I was throwing you-the-designers a bone by including the chance of flare in. That just means that the spell sucks in multiple ways when compared to those two, is all.
TRIPLEGAME226
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 03:42 PM CDT
>Why do they continue to leave broken spells broken while adding irrelevant lore tie-ins? What purpose does this serve anyone? So disappointing! -Taverkin
>Because as I said before, this is the Elemental Lore Review, not the Elemental Spell Review.
Maybe I'm just crazy, but the haste/immolate/rapid fire nerfs totally contradict this, since they're part of the ELR.
>If you didn't use 520 before, you can continue to not use it going forward. For those wizards that do use it, they now have an extra benefit. You can apply this to each and ever spell we're updating in the ELR.
>Just to make something clear, you should not be expecting some huge mechanical benefits from the ELR, especially just because we're down tweaking a few other spells. You're getting some good with some bad, but that doesn't mean we're going to replace the loss power from not being able to maintain Rapid Fire all the time or being able to outright kill most targets with a single cast of Immolate. If you're expecting that, look no further.
>GameMaster Estild
"especially just because we're down tweaking a few other spells."
You say it like nerfing the crap out of our 3 biggest spells is just something we should brush off as nothing, as if it was equivalent to nerfing Duplicate to no longer work on silver wands. Especially when so far everything we've seen has been lackluster at best, and now apparently it looks like that changes to the actual spells (which I assume would be intended to offset these huge nerfs) will just come...sometime later, which usually means RSN, which usually means years from now if ever.
What happened to (paraphrasing) we're supposed to be getting new stuff to offset these nerfs as part of the ELR? Sounds to me like the stuff we'll be getting will still leave us significantly behind from where we were pre-nerf. Why would you throw these nerfs at us, throw us some bread crumbs that do nothing to offset the nerfs, and then basically tell us to just deal with it?
It's almost like someone gave the order to nerf wizards down to make them as boring as possible, and that you (Simu in general) think we're stupid enough to think a few useless parlor tricks that will rarely if ever affect the tide of combat are going to distract us from the obliteration of our profession at its core.
But to be fair, anyone that had any faith left after the "switch to bolts or hang back and wait for mana" statement was made for how war mages are apparently going to be expected to deal with the Haste nerf, probably falls for Nigerian prince scams as well.
The fact that the rest of these changes that Wyrom assured us we need to just "trust you" on haven't even been given a teaser leads me to believe that nobody even knows for sure where they're planning on going with the rest of the ELR stuff that has yet to come. Or maybe the uproar from the stuff that was released sent some people back to the drawing board and they're staring at it like a deer in headlights. Obviously I don't know, but that's just the vibe I get.
Do me a favor...leave Rapid Fire long enough for me to powerlevel a sorcerer to cap or something. Or just take the RSN approach with the nerfs so we can continue enjoying playing our profession the same way we've been playing them for decades. Change just for the sake of change usually ends up being a disaster.
>This is not even close to being true. In fact, I explicitly stated we increasing the base damage of the spell to make it more viable for all wizards, and that the the spell is moving away from the disabling aspect to make room for the lethality aspect. Wizards who have 202 EL:F tracks will see a change, but that doesn't mean the spell is "going attrtion-based".
Increase the base damage, while removing 2 damage cycles from the lore benefits of it, therefore reducing its lethality for heavy fire mages. And removing the disabler on top of it, which was just as important to the spell as its killing factor.
But I'll bite...what changes should we expect to see, assuming fully trained in fire lore? If it's not going attrition based, and it's not going to be a disabler, what should we be expecting from this spell? A crit kill that usually doesn't happen because arms and legs are being blown off instead, with even less chance now due to having 3 damage cycles instead of 5?
>The issue was with how deadly the spell was combined with the complete disabling aspect of it. It was likely to outright kill the target and if not, the target was locked into 10+ seconds of RT. If wizards need a better means to disable, we can definitely look into that.
If that's the case, then why is the mana cost not being reduced? It's going to have less killing power, no RT/disabler ability, but still cost 19 mana while some other professions have cheaper spells are just as lethal?
>The issue was with how deadly the spell was combined with the complete disabling aspect of it. It was likely to outright kill the target and if not, the target was locked into 10+ seconds of RT. If wizards need a better means to disable, we can definitely look into that.
This is the problem. You want to roll out all the nerfs first, and then "look into" the rest after. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sure is what it sounds like.
Keeping us in the dark on so many things still while the only things we do know about are nerfs is probably the worst way this whole thing could have been rolled out or presented. Not blaming that on you, but whoever's giving the orders up there needs to take a class or two. If things are still being designed, then just tell us. If "It's ready but we just don't want to show you yet", then /boggle
415 is the only HSN combat related thing I've seen that is useful, and maybe the 909 changes. I'm looking forward to seeing how 502 ends up, as well as what else you end up applying fire lore to, but I'm not letting myself get too hype for it and then have it be slightly better than casting 1700 or something.
Perhaps you could release some details on fire lore related buffs, since that's supposed to be the damage/combat lore? With the severe nerfs that are coming for us, I doubt the majority of wizards are concerned with how elemental lore is going to affect their utility right now.
~ Methais
>Because as I said before, this is the Elemental Lore Review, not the Elemental Spell Review.
Maybe I'm just crazy, but the haste/immolate/rapid fire nerfs totally contradict this, since they're part of the ELR.
>If you didn't use 520 before, you can continue to not use it going forward. For those wizards that do use it, they now have an extra benefit. You can apply this to each and ever spell we're updating in the ELR.
>Just to make something clear, you should not be expecting some huge mechanical benefits from the ELR, especially just because we're down tweaking a few other spells. You're getting some good with some bad, but that doesn't mean we're going to replace the loss power from not being able to maintain Rapid Fire all the time or being able to outright kill most targets with a single cast of Immolate. If you're expecting that, look no further.
>GameMaster Estild
"especially just because we're down tweaking a few other spells."
You say it like nerfing the crap out of our 3 biggest spells is just something we should brush off as nothing, as if it was equivalent to nerfing Duplicate to no longer work on silver wands. Especially when so far everything we've seen has been lackluster at best, and now apparently it looks like that changes to the actual spells (which I assume would be intended to offset these huge nerfs) will just come...sometime later, which usually means RSN, which usually means years from now if ever.
What happened to (paraphrasing) we're supposed to be getting new stuff to offset these nerfs as part of the ELR? Sounds to me like the stuff we'll be getting will still leave us significantly behind from where we were pre-nerf. Why would you throw these nerfs at us, throw us some bread crumbs that do nothing to offset the nerfs, and then basically tell us to just deal with it?
It's almost like someone gave the order to nerf wizards down to make them as boring as possible, and that you (Simu in general) think we're stupid enough to think a few useless parlor tricks that will rarely if ever affect the tide of combat are going to distract us from the obliteration of our profession at its core.
But to be fair, anyone that had any faith left after the "switch to bolts or hang back and wait for mana" statement was made for how war mages are apparently going to be expected to deal with the Haste nerf, probably falls for Nigerian prince scams as well.
The fact that the rest of these changes that Wyrom assured us we need to just "trust you" on haven't even been given a teaser leads me to believe that nobody even knows for sure where they're planning on going with the rest of the ELR stuff that has yet to come. Or maybe the uproar from the stuff that was released sent some people back to the drawing board and they're staring at it like a deer in headlights. Obviously I don't know, but that's just the vibe I get.
Do me a favor...leave Rapid Fire long enough for me to powerlevel a sorcerer to cap or something. Or just take the RSN approach with the nerfs so we can continue enjoying playing our profession the same way we've been playing them for decades. Change just for the sake of change usually ends up being a disaster.
>This is not even close to being true. In fact, I explicitly stated we increasing the base damage of the spell to make it more viable for all wizards, and that the the spell is moving away from the disabling aspect to make room for the lethality aspect. Wizards who have 202 EL:F tracks will see a change, but that doesn't mean the spell is "going attrtion-based".
Increase the base damage, while removing 2 damage cycles from the lore benefits of it, therefore reducing its lethality for heavy fire mages. And removing the disabler on top of it, which was just as important to the spell as its killing factor.
But I'll bite...what changes should we expect to see, assuming fully trained in fire lore? If it's not going attrition based, and it's not going to be a disabler, what should we be expecting from this spell? A crit kill that usually doesn't happen because arms and legs are being blown off instead, with even less chance now due to having 3 damage cycles instead of 5?
>The issue was with how deadly the spell was combined with the complete disabling aspect of it. It was likely to outright kill the target and if not, the target was locked into 10+ seconds of RT. If wizards need a better means to disable, we can definitely look into that.
If that's the case, then why is the mana cost not being reduced? It's going to have less killing power, no RT/disabler ability, but still cost 19 mana while some other professions have cheaper spells are just as lethal?
>The issue was with how deadly the spell was combined with the complete disabling aspect of it. It was likely to outright kill the target and if not, the target was locked into 10+ seconds of RT. If wizards need a better means to disable, we can definitely look into that.
This is the problem. You want to roll out all the nerfs first, and then "look into" the rest after. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sure is what it sounds like.
Keeping us in the dark on so many things still while the only things we do know about are nerfs is probably the worst way this whole thing could have been rolled out or presented. Not blaming that on you, but whoever's giving the orders up there needs to take a class or two. If things are still being designed, then just tell us. If "It's ready but we just don't want to show you yet", then /boggle
415 is the only HSN combat related thing I've seen that is useful, and maybe the 909 changes. I'm looking forward to seeing how 502 ends up, as well as what else you end up applying fire lore to, but I'm not letting myself get too hype for it and then have it be slightly better than casting 1700 or something.
Perhaps you could release some details on fire lore related buffs, since that's supposed to be the damage/combat lore? With the severe nerfs that are coming for us, I doubt the majority of wizards are concerned with how elemental lore is going to affect their utility right now.
~ Methais
ERYKK2
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 03:43 PM CDT
| To respond to your question, if 506, 515, 519 were all to disappear, what would we want in their place? |
| Reduced subscription costs and the ability to change classes. |
| ~Whirlin |
LOL
I love my current Wizard character, but I do think I would prefer to convert to another class after Wizards are destroyed. There's not really anything to look forward to. Insignificant lore additions do not make up for the nerfs and who knows when we'll actually see a spell review.
GS4-VIDUUS
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 03:56 PM CDT
>>(and I've seen plenty of suggestions for alternatives to the other spells besides which perhaps you've missed?)
I'm keeping lists. Even your suggestions for 515 tweaks get consideration.
>>Maybe I'm not understanding how my suggestions are akin to "tricking out the pony"?
Because your suggestions revolve around 515...
personal opinion
Let me break it down for you on how my own mind works - and bear in mind this is supposed to be somewhat humorous as my mind tends to do that.
I say "hey guys, what's going on? Tell me about your class and what you'd like to see happen."
You say "a 901/515 is crazy good because it's mana efficient and fast - I kill everything in .5 seconds! Make it betta!"
I think "Weird, what a lame build, pinking things to death with static electricity instead of a lightning bolt or fire, though I suppose there's value the efficiency of the setup.... Whoa .5 seconds?!? that's a bit off!"
I say "why the heck aren't you using some other setup? that seems like a gimpy way to kill things."
You say "I do this because it's fun - GS combat is boring, bolting specifically! Also bolting is really ineffective - attrition based booo hisss, CS spells don't work this way that's why they're fun!"
I think "oh that's a fair point, CS spells do work differently."
I say "Oh, yeah CS spells do work differently, is that what you guys expecting for bolts to be closer to the lethality of CS spells?"
crickets
You say "You guys never listen, here's a new idea for 515, instead of 100% 0 CT for all spells, it'll be 100% CT for 901!"
I think "Well that's not really changing anything, it's pretty much just making 515 suck for anyone not using a 901/515 setup and nothing in return for those other people."
I say "So, give me some numbers, what is your kill/damage ratio you're looking to get with 515/901."
You say "317 kills in 3 seconds - 0 technically - you won't see that with 901. Also 720 works 10000% of the time and doesn't cost but 6 mana. Also 1115 combined with 240 also kills in 0, therefore killing in 8 seconds with 901 isn't OP!"
I think "So... he wants to kill in 8 seconds, ok that's feasible, what are other classes averaging for mana in 8 second kills....maths is hard...uh ok we can probably work something out with adding that mana cost to 515 to give semblance of balance when comparing to other classes."
I say "ok new plan, you can now use 515/910 and kill in half the time for a bit more in mana costs!"
You say "awful, who birthed you a mongrel kobold? I found a dungpile earlier today that had better math skills. I know at some point I suggested 515 getting CT, but any plan that includes that kills my 901 build so NO! oops sorry lost my temper!"
I think "hrm, ok so I missed something, 901 is somehow important to this guy's combat approach."
I say "Costs have to be assessed, do you want it moved up to 40th slot and work somewhat like 240 since that's compariable?"
You say "No you ruined it! OMG you've broken the entire class with your mindless dribble! I know you haven't actually made a single negative change yet, but I absolutely can't function now. How do you morons get dressed in the morning? 901/515 will only work if 901 and 515 remain unchanged... omg you guys haven't updated the class in years but don't change anything on it - I actually hate change! The 901/515 is fine because 240/1115 kills stuff, and panic buttons."
I say "So what exactly do you want? There's obviously a problem that you agreed to at some point as being a problem - see 515, yet you haven't clearly communicated what a 901/515 build gives you if it's not speed/mana efficiency that couldn't be obtained via other mechanics and you haven't told us what you get out of the basic system. Is it just the ability to kill stuff in .5 seconds for 10 mana? Is that what it really boils down to? Because that's not consistent with the rest of the game. If you want to kill that quickly, it's possible, but you have to pay a higher cost."
You say "No we're broken and can't function in the same way as every other class in the game!"
I say, "Why not?"
You say "Because 240 can give +100 CS to a spell and kill something in 3 seconds. And 720 kills stuff in one cast sometimes, and 1115 rocks. Oh and nerf 319 because it's not 540 - which doesn't help us survive at all!"
I say "Well, are you saying you need more surviability then? Are you saying you need a powerup button? Are you saying you're deficient somewher else?"
crickets
I say "hey guys, what's going on? Tell me about your class and what you'd like to see happen."
So yeah, that's my experience.
Viduus
I'm keeping lists. Even your suggestions for 515 tweaks get consideration.
>>Maybe I'm not understanding how my suggestions are akin to "tricking out the pony"?
Because your suggestions revolve around 515...
personal opinion
Let me break it down for you on how my own mind works - and bear in mind this is supposed to be somewhat humorous as my mind tends to do that.
I say "hey guys, what's going on? Tell me about your class and what you'd like to see happen."
You say "a 901/515 is crazy good because it's mana efficient and fast - I kill everything in .5 seconds! Make it betta!"
I think "Weird, what a lame build, pinking things to death with static electricity instead of a lightning bolt or fire, though I suppose there's value the efficiency of the setup.... Whoa .5 seconds?!? that's a bit off!"
I say "why the heck aren't you using some other setup? that seems like a gimpy way to kill things."
You say "I do this because it's fun - GS combat is boring, bolting specifically! Also bolting is really ineffective - attrition based booo hisss, CS spells don't work this way that's why they're fun!"
I think "oh that's a fair point, CS spells do work differently."
I say "Oh, yeah CS spells do work differently, is that what you guys expecting for bolts to be closer to the lethality of CS spells?"
crickets
You say "You guys never listen, here's a new idea for 515, instead of 100% 0 CT for all spells, it'll be 100% CT for 901!"
I think "Well that's not really changing anything, it's pretty much just making 515 suck for anyone not using a 901/515 setup and nothing in return for those other people."
I say "So, give me some numbers, what is your kill/damage ratio you're looking to get with 515/901."
You say "317 kills in 3 seconds - 0 technically - you won't see that with 901. Also 720 works 10000% of the time and doesn't cost but 6 mana. Also 1115 combined with 240 also kills in 0, therefore killing in 8 seconds with 901 isn't OP!"
I think "So... he wants to kill in 8 seconds, ok that's feasible, what are other classes averaging for mana in 8 second kills....maths is hard...uh ok we can probably work something out with adding that mana cost to 515 to give semblance of balance when comparing to other classes."
I say "ok new plan, you can now use 515/910 and kill in half the time for a bit more in mana costs!"
You say "awful, who birthed you a mongrel kobold? I found a dungpile earlier today that had better math skills. I know at some point I suggested 515 getting CT, but any plan that includes that kills my 901 build so NO! oops sorry lost my temper!"
I think "hrm, ok so I missed something, 901 is somehow important to this guy's combat approach."
I say "Costs have to be assessed, do you want it moved up to 40th slot and work somewhat like 240 since that's compariable?"
You say "No you ruined it! OMG you've broken the entire class with your mindless dribble! I know you haven't actually made a single negative change yet, but I absolutely can't function now. How do you morons get dressed in the morning? 901/515 will only work if 901 and 515 remain unchanged... omg you guys haven't updated the class in years but don't change anything on it - I actually hate change! The 901/515 is fine because 240/1115 kills stuff, and panic buttons."
I say "So what exactly do you want? There's obviously a problem that you agreed to at some point as being a problem - see 515, yet you haven't clearly communicated what a 901/515 build gives you if it's not speed/mana efficiency that couldn't be obtained via other mechanics and you haven't told us what you get out of the basic system. Is it just the ability to kill stuff in .5 seconds for 10 mana? Is that what it really boils down to? Because that's not consistent with the rest of the game. If you want to kill that quickly, it's possible, but you have to pay a higher cost."
You say "No we're broken and can't function in the same way as every other class in the game!"
I say, "Why not?"
You say "Because 240 can give +100 CS to a spell and kill something in 3 seconds. And 720 kills stuff in one cast sometimes, and 1115 rocks. Oh and nerf 319 because it's not 540 - which doesn't help us survive at all!"
I say "Well, are you saying you need more surviability then? Are you saying you need a powerup button? Are you saying you're deficient somewher else?"
crickets
I say "hey guys, what's going on? Tell me about your class and what you'd like to see happen."
So yeah, that's my experience.
Viduus
DJEFFREY1
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 03:58 PM CDT
>>I love my current Wizard character, but I do think I would prefer to convert to another class after Wizards are destroyed. There's not really anything to look forward to. Insignificant lore additions do not make up for the nerfs and who knows when we'll actually see a spell review.
Yeah, honestly, I'd rather just leave one higher level enchanter and convert the others to a class that isn't get nerfed to high heaven.
Yeah, honestly, I'd rather just leave one higher level enchanter and convert the others to a class that isn't get nerfed to high heaven.
GS4-KONACON
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 04:01 PM CDT
| GS4-VIDUUS |
| zomgwall |
At first I looked at that wall and I was like whoa. Then I powered through it and I'm glad I did. Hilarious.
~ Konacon
DRUMPEL
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 04:02 PM CDT
| You do realize summation favors lower level characters? You get more benefits for less ranks. The higher you go up, the less benefit you get. They favor lower rank investment and thus lower level characters. |
| GameMaster Estild |
It's great and all that lower level players will see benefits with "some" training in lores, but what about those that actually work hard and focus one lore.
Building 2x fire lore for 519 was a valid reason, it gave you something to work for if you wanted to go that route. No other lore offered anything like that and even now the option to 2x fire lore is being stripped from 519 so it's not as effective or necessary (which is good on the necessary part, but bad on the effectiveness part).
The diminishing returns really hurts someone that pushes a lore to its max. Right now it appears there is no benefit to really exceed 50-60 ranks in any given elemental lore since the returns are far and few between.
I'm still waiting to see what all is offered once the ELR roll out is finished, but with the current trend, it appears for game mechanics, every wizard is better off training a few ranks in each lore to obtain the most "bonuses" with the least amount of diminishing returns.
For the wizard that takes Air lore to max, he currently has very little to show for the efforts against someone that has half as many ranks in the same lore. Give us something that will appeal to those that seek to streamline a single lore. I don't want to be like every other wizard out there, training the same, which is where I see the whole ELR taking us. We'll all train the same ranks to obtain the most bonuses across all spells.
Give us reasons to maybe decide to really focus one lore over just dabbling in them all. For the few that may go the 1 lore route, they should have some awesome (not game breaking) bonuses/abilities with the spells that their Lore effects.
-Drumpel
OBSERVER
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 04:04 PM CDT
Part of the problem, Viduus, is that Wizards are being told on one hand their suggestions are outside the scope of the ELR, as it is not a spell review. On the other, they're being told they're not thinking outside the box because they're suggesting modifications to existing spells, most likely in an effort to fall within the bounds of the ELR.
BLACKKOBOLD
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 04:04 PM CDT
<This is correct. If it turns out to be an issue once the ELR is over and all of the respective spells that CoE uses have had their updates and it's not as strong it is going to get looked at.
Hmm, yeah, I suppose if it's going to add various effects that are to be applied to bolts during the ELR. On the one hand, I'm glad to hear bolts are getting those additional effects. On the other hand, it seems clear bolt consolidation is out. Bummer.
~Taverkin
Hmm, yeah, I suppose if it's going to add various effects that are to be applied to bolts during the ELR. On the one hand, I'm glad to hear bolts are getting those additional effects. On the other hand, it seems clear bolt consolidation is out. Bummer.
~Taverkin
BLACKKOBOLD
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 04:07 PM CDT
<Given that the "base functionality" of Stone Skin/520 sucks @#()*&@# compared to Wall of Thorns or Pestilence, I figured I was throwing you-the-designers a bone by including the chance of <flare in. That just means that the spell sucks in multiple ways when compared to those two, is all.
Krakii! I'm shocked! You sound like me! LoL
I thought it was your job to share some long-winded story of how you and some guy who doesn't play anymore were once cornered by a horde of giant rats and stone skin was the only thing that prevented your armor from chafing, thereby justifying its continued existence as a 20th level major circle spell!
~Taverkin
Krakii! I'm shocked! You sound like me! LoL
I thought it was your job to share some long-winded story of how you and some guy who doesn't play anymore were once cornered by a horde of giant rats and stone skin was the only thing that prevented your armor from chafing, thereby justifying its continued existence as a 20th level major circle spell!
~Taverkin
GS4-VIDUUS
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 04:08 PM CDT
>I saw 950 as a really nice addition to offset some of 506's current benefits, both defensively and offensively. That didn't originate from a player on this forum after the prompting - but it could have - again missed opportunity because the focus is misdirected. - Viduus
>>...what? You're saying a spell that at its base level is able to be used once per day ...that you don't get access to until your level 50 at the earliest, is suppose to in some meaningful way replace the current benefits of a level 6 spell with unlimited uses.
I said "to offset some of 506's current benefits".
>>Also, Time Stop is a 100% player suggested ability. Rimalon and many others have suggested the spell in the past.
Which is why I specifically said "didn't originate from a player on this forum after the prompting".
Viduus
GS4-VIDUUS
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 04:10 PM CDT
It is NOT a direct reflection of Immolation's power. If you want immolation used less by 2x capped people, give us something to train in that keeps Spell aiming competitive post cap. Give us Spell AS boosts with Combat Maneuvers or something... anything that we can dump TP into that'll increase our BOLT hunting effectiveness.
~Whirlin
Who said 519 would be used less by 2x capped people, or that it was even a desire? I also never said there would be less incentive for training in lore to boost the spell.
As far as the boredom that comes with post cap - different discussion.
Viduus
LADYFLEUR
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 04:11 PM CDT
Wow, it sounds like you haven't listened to a single thing anyone has said, if that's your interpretation. But here goes:
>You say "a 901/515 is crazy good because it's mana efficient and fast - I kill everything in .5 seconds! Make it betta!"
>I think "Weird, what a lame build, pinking things to death with static electricity instead of a lightning bolt or fire, though I suppose there's value the efficiency of the setup.... Whoa .5 seconds?!? that's a bit off!"
515/901 is annoying screen scroll. Make 515 require a 3 mana minimum spell, and problem solved, if your concern is mana efficiency.
>I say "Oh, yeah CS spells do work differently, is that what you guys expecting for bolts to be closer to the lethality of CS spells?"
Yes, bolts need to either be aimed or result in a guaranteed kill given a high enough AS/DS differential, similar to the way CS completely bypasses EBP and guarantees a kill given enough training, enhancives, and other spell boosts.
>I say "So, give me some numbers, what is your kill/damage ratio you're looking to get with 515/901."
See above about how getting rid of 515/901 is fine. Make a 3 mana minimum for a spell to be used with Rapid Fire.
>You say "317 kills in 3 seconds - 0 technically - you won't see that with 901. Also 720 works 10000% of the time and doesn't cost but 6 mana. Also 1115 combined with 240 also kills in 0, therefore killing in 8 seconds with 901 isn't OP!"
>I think "So... he wants to kill in 8 seconds, ok that's feasible, what are other classes averaging for mana in 8 second kills....maths is hard...uh ok we can probably work something out with adding that mana cost to 515 to give semblance of balance when comparing to other classes."
Ignoring 901, 8 seconds of any other bolt under the effect of Rapid Fire still already costs far more mana than 720, 317, or 1115. Rapid Fire is not FREE mana, it is faster expenditure of mana to overcome the attrition-based nature of unaimed bolts.
>I say "Costs have to be assessed, do you want it moved up to 40th slot and work somewhat like 240 since that's compariable?"
>You say "No you ruined it! OMG you've broken the entire class with your mindless dribble! I know you haven't actually made a single negative change yet, but I absolutely can't function now. How do you morons get dressed in the morning? 901/515 will only work if 901 and 515 remain unchanged... omg you guys haven't updated the class in years but don't change anything on it - I actually hate change! The 901/515 is fine because 240/1115 kills stuff, and panic buttons."
Are you deliberately being obtuse here? As far as I know, Taverkin said nothing about 240/1115 and I said nothing about needing 901/515. I've also illustrated (with math) precisely how 240 and 515 AREN'T comparable. 240 is a power-up on top of a power-up, giving 75+ mana worth of free spirit slayer casts that come with massively boosted CS. 240 is the spell that is about mana efficiency, on top of being a true power up. There is no power-up about 515 aside from being able to spend your mana more quickly, because more casts of bolts are necessary to result in the same dead creature that 1-2 casts of 1115 or 317 are able to achieve.
>I say "So what exactly do you want? There's obviously a problem that you agreed to at some point as being a problem - see 515, yet you haven't clearly communicated what a 901/515 build gives you if it's not speed/mana efficiency that couldn't be obtained via other mechanics and you haven't told us what you get out of the basic system. Is it just the ability to kill stuff in .5 seconds for 10 mana? Is that what it really boils down to? Because that's not consistent with the rest of the game. If you want to kill that quickly, it's possible, but you have to pay a higher cost."
No one needs a 901/515 build. They do, post-cap, need a bolt/515 build to get around the attrition-based bolt problem. It's about being able to safely hunt the Scatter, the second floor of Nelemar, and warcamps as all of the other 3 pures are able to do with their CS-based spells.
>You say "No we're broken and can't function in the same way as every other class in the game!"
>I say, "Why not?"
>You say "Because 240 can give +100 CS to a spell and kill something in 3 seconds. And 720 kills stuff in one cast sometimes, and 1115 rocks. Oh and nerf 319 because it's not 540 - which doesn't help us survive at all!"
I say "Well, are you saying you need more surviability then? Are you saying you need a powerup button? Are you saying you're deficient somewher else?"
No one said anything about nerfing anyone else. Why do you have to make things less fun? We're pointing out that 515 and 519 may seem overpowered, but in comparison to any number of other combat combos/capabilities that ALL other professions have, they are not. Are you even listening to us?
Yes, we need a CS-booster power up button if you're expecting us to switch primarily to using CS-based spells that are on par with 1115 and 317. Otherwise by default, we'll be lacking in power in comparison.
>You say "a 901/515 is crazy good because it's mana efficient and fast - I kill everything in .5 seconds! Make it betta!"
>I think "Weird, what a lame build, pinking things to death with static electricity instead of a lightning bolt or fire, though I suppose there's value the efficiency of the setup.... Whoa .5 seconds?!? that's a bit off!"
515/901 is annoying screen scroll. Make 515 require a 3 mana minimum spell, and problem solved, if your concern is mana efficiency.
>I say "Oh, yeah CS spells do work differently, is that what you guys expecting for bolts to be closer to the lethality of CS spells?"
Yes, bolts need to either be aimed or result in a guaranteed kill given a high enough AS/DS differential, similar to the way CS completely bypasses EBP and guarantees a kill given enough training, enhancives, and other spell boosts.
>I say "So, give me some numbers, what is your kill/damage ratio you're looking to get with 515/901."
See above about how getting rid of 515/901 is fine. Make a 3 mana minimum for a spell to be used with Rapid Fire.
>You say "317 kills in 3 seconds - 0 technically - you won't see that with 901. Also 720 works 10000% of the time and doesn't cost but 6 mana. Also 1115 combined with 240 also kills in 0, therefore killing in 8 seconds with 901 isn't OP!"
>I think "So... he wants to kill in 8 seconds, ok that's feasible, what are other classes averaging for mana in 8 second kills....maths is hard...uh ok we can probably work something out with adding that mana cost to 515 to give semblance of balance when comparing to other classes."
Ignoring 901, 8 seconds of any other bolt under the effect of Rapid Fire still already costs far more mana than 720, 317, or 1115. Rapid Fire is not FREE mana, it is faster expenditure of mana to overcome the attrition-based nature of unaimed bolts.
>I say "Costs have to be assessed, do you want it moved up to 40th slot and work somewhat like 240 since that's compariable?"
>You say "No you ruined it! OMG you've broken the entire class with your mindless dribble! I know you haven't actually made a single negative change yet, but I absolutely can't function now. How do you morons get dressed in the morning? 901/515 will only work if 901 and 515 remain unchanged... omg you guys haven't updated the class in years but don't change anything on it - I actually hate change! The 901/515 is fine because 240/1115 kills stuff, and panic buttons."
Are you deliberately being obtuse here? As far as I know, Taverkin said nothing about 240/1115 and I said nothing about needing 901/515. I've also illustrated (with math) precisely how 240 and 515 AREN'T comparable. 240 is a power-up on top of a power-up, giving 75+ mana worth of free spirit slayer casts that come with massively boosted CS. 240 is the spell that is about mana efficiency, on top of being a true power up. There is no power-up about 515 aside from being able to spend your mana more quickly, because more casts of bolts are necessary to result in the same dead creature that 1-2 casts of 1115 or 317 are able to achieve.
>I say "So what exactly do you want? There's obviously a problem that you agreed to at some point as being a problem - see 515, yet you haven't clearly communicated what a 901/515 build gives you if it's not speed/mana efficiency that couldn't be obtained via other mechanics and you haven't told us what you get out of the basic system. Is it just the ability to kill stuff in .5 seconds for 10 mana? Is that what it really boils down to? Because that's not consistent with the rest of the game. If you want to kill that quickly, it's possible, but you have to pay a higher cost."
No one needs a 901/515 build. They do, post-cap, need a bolt/515 build to get around the attrition-based bolt problem. It's about being able to safely hunt the Scatter, the second floor of Nelemar, and warcamps as all of the other 3 pures are able to do with their CS-based spells.
>You say "No we're broken and can't function in the same way as every other class in the game!"
>I say, "Why not?"
>You say "Because 240 can give +100 CS to a spell and kill something in 3 seconds. And 720 kills stuff in one cast sometimes, and 1115 rocks. Oh and nerf 319 because it's not 540 - which doesn't help us survive at all!"
I say "Well, are you saying you need more surviability then? Are you saying you need a powerup button? Are you saying you're deficient somewher else?"
No one said anything about nerfing anyone else. Why do you have to make things less fun? We're pointing out that 515 and 519 may seem overpowered, but in comparison to any number of other combat combos/capabilities that ALL other professions have, they are not. Are you even listening to us?
Yes, we need a CS-booster power up button if you're expecting us to switch primarily to using CS-based spells that are on par with 1115 and 317. Otherwise by default, we'll be lacking in power in comparison.
LADYFLEUR
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 04:14 PM CDT
>Who said 519 would be used less by 2x capped people, or that it was even a desire? I also never said there would be less incentive for training in lore to boost the spell.
Please help me out here. You JUST said that "not everything revolves around 2x+ capped mages" and your idea of a lateral shift was that the spell would be accessible to more mages.
Now you're saying that it's not a desire for less than 2x capped people to use it more. So where is the lateral shift? Into the ether? The end result is a net loss in achievable power, the end.
Please help me out here. You JUST said that "not everything revolves around 2x+ capped mages" and your idea of a lateral shift was that the spell would be accessible to more mages.
Now you're saying that it's not a desire for less than 2x capped people to use it more. So where is the lateral shift? Into the ether? The end result is a net loss in achievable power, the end.
GS4-ESTILD
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 04:14 PM CDT
| Drumpel |
| It's great and all that lower level players will see benefits with "some" training in lores, but what about those that actually work hard and focus one lore. |
I agree it's an issue. I think it's unlikely we completely redesign the lore progression, but I would like to implement some unique, awe-inspiring abilities for each lore in the 150-200 range to give a nice reward to those who dedicate themselves.
GameMaster Estild
ERYKK2
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 04:17 PM CDT
| I say "Oh, yeah CS spells do work differently, is that what you guys expecting for bolts to be closer to the lethality of CS spells?" |
| crickets |
Yes. I can copy/paste where the Dogmatist hits me with a 108 endroll, and I'm stunned for 8 rounds and take 138 damage.
ERYKK2
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 04:18 PM CDT
| You say "awful, who birthed you a mongrel kobold? I found a dungpile earlier today that had better math skills. I know at some point I suggested 515 getting CT, but any plan that includes that kills my 901 build so NO! oops sorry lost my temper!" |
Also, LOL.
GS4-ESTILD
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 04:18 PM CDT
| Taverkin |
| Hmm, yeah, I suppose if it's going to add various effects that are to be applied to bolts during the ELR. On the one hand, I'm glad to hear bolts are getting those additional effects. On the other hand, it seems clear bolt consolidation is out. Bummer. |
We actually discussed the idea of doing it as we started on the ELR design discussions a few months back. Since we were wanting to focus on lore benefits, we decided again any major revision to bolt spells in general. It's definitely not off the table; just not something we were ready to tackle.
GameMaster Estild
KRAKII
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 04:29 PM CDT
Oh, please Taverkin.
Everyone knows that Dwarves use braided beard-hair blankets to keep their armor from chafing, just like if they were riding a horse.
<dismiss>
:)
.
.
""You're comparing the base functionality of one spell to the lore benefit of another. In general, the latter is intended to be a small bonus and usually to the degree that it won't significantly affect combat. There are exceptions, but in general, that's how lores should work." -- Estild
"Given that the "base functionality" of Stone Skin/520 sucks @#()*&@# compared to Wall of Thorns or Pestilence, I figured I was throwing you-the-designers a bone by including the chance of flare in. That just means that the spell sucks in multiple ways when compared to those two, is all." -- My initial reply
Here's the thing, Estild: the base functionality of those two spells is, "Mess with what attacked me whether it hits me or not."
The base functionality of Stone Skin is, "Remove a little bit of the damage that gets through to me when I do get hit (without reducing the critical effect at all!)... and then take myself out of consideration, once I get hit hard enough."
Even the bonus effect, of "Mess with what attacked me... mmmaaaaayyyyybbee" (starting at 1% chance, with Seed<High>) requires the Mage to get pasted. First.
Compared to Always. And. Every. Swing. Against. The. Wearer. Hit. Or. Miss.
Tell me there's a fair comparison.
(Even with the fact that Pestilence starts with only 25% chance to react and 5 charges with Seed<High> to increase. Even so: It. Gets. Checked. Every. Attack.)
Everyone knows that Dwarves use braided beard-hair blankets to keep their armor from chafing, just like if they were riding a horse.
<dismiss>
:)
.
.
""You're comparing the base functionality of one spell to the lore benefit of another. In general, the latter is intended to be a small bonus and usually to the degree that it won't significantly affect combat. There are exceptions, but in general, that's how lores should work." -- Estild
"Given that the "base functionality" of Stone Skin/520 sucks @#()*&@# compared to Wall of Thorns or Pestilence, I figured I was throwing you-the-designers a bone by including the chance of flare in. That just means that the spell sucks in multiple ways when compared to those two, is all." -- My initial reply
Here's the thing, Estild: the base functionality of those two spells is, "Mess with what attacked me whether it hits me or not."
The base functionality of Stone Skin is, "Remove a little bit of the damage that gets through to me when I do get hit (without reducing the critical effect at all!)... and then take myself out of consideration, once I get hit hard enough."
Even the bonus effect, of "Mess with what attacked me... mmmaaaaayyyyybbee" (starting at 1% chance, with Seed<High>) requires the Mage to get pasted. First.
Compared to Always. And. Every. Swing. Against. The. Wearer. Hit. Or. Miss.
Tell me there's a fair comparison.
(Even with the fact that Pestilence starts with only 25% chance to react and 5 charges with Seed<High> to increase. Even so: It. Gets. Checked. Every. Attack.)
ASPEN
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 04:35 PM CDT
>Level based disablers that give RT/minor damage are not at all the same as CS-based disablers that stun outright or cause mass damage. Try using 410 or 435 in the Scatter as a level 100 character and see how well that works for you.
Right... thats true, then again, they do hit everything in the room. Is there a mass stun everything in the room spell I'm not familiar with? I'm sure you're not walking about mass evil eye which requires so much setup, and to which so many things are straight up immune. Mass calm? I guess 1120 is pretty cool. It messes up bolt splash damage though.
Still, ewave is a pretty awesome spell, there is probably not an empath or cleric in game that doesn't wish they had it.
GS4-VIDUUS
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 04:42 PM CDT
How about actually telling me what you like and go into some detail? These one-line responses to pages and pages of ideas are pretty useless to me and make it seem as if you don't really want to have this conversation at all.
~Taverkin
So, it's difficult giving direct feedback on suggestions without sending the wrong impression. Just because I like part of a suggestion doesn't mean I like the whole. Just because I like the suggestion completely doesn't mean it'll be adopted and implemented. Just because I don't like an idea doesn't mean parts of all have merit.
Just because I like one suggestion doesn't mean it's suddenly officially mandated as the direction we're going. <---and this is why we don't do it. You guys tend to take statements we make as the word of god and forever unchanging. You also only ever have part of the picture, unfortunately. So as much as I would like to have a one-on-one conversation, I haven't personally figured out a way to make it work yet.
Probably the most effective method of us getting you what you want while considering overall game integrity is to simply break down your desires to more basic parts with examples and suggestions to back up the breakdown. Example, if wind blows on my mage he dies I need something to help him survive a single failed attack like the other professions have. Example: aivren bit me because warlock dispelled 503 and I instantly died on a 115 endroll. Suggestion improved 520 via blah blah blah.
Viduus
~Taverkin
So, it's difficult giving direct feedback on suggestions without sending the wrong impression. Just because I like part of a suggestion doesn't mean I like the whole. Just because I like the suggestion completely doesn't mean it'll be adopted and implemented. Just because I don't like an idea doesn't mean parts of all have merit.
Just because I like one suggestion doesn't mean it's suddenly officially mandated as the direction we're going. <---and this is why we don't do it. You guys tend to take statements we make as the word of god and forever unchanging. You also only ever have part of the picture, unfortunately. So as much as I would like to have a one-on-one conversation, I haven't personally figured out a way to make it work yet.
Probably the most effective method of us getting you what you want while considering overall game integrity is to simply break down your desires to more basic parts with examples and suggestions to back up the breakdown. Example, if wind blows on my mage he dies I need something to help him survive a single failed attack like the other professions have. Example: aivren bit me because warlock dispelled 503 and I instantly died on a 115 endroll. Suggestion improved 520 via blah blah blah.
Viduus
LADYFLEUR
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 04:43 PM CDT
>Right... thats true, then again, they do hit everything in the room. Is there a mass stun everything in the room spell I'm not familiar with? I'm sure you're not walking about mass evil eye which requires so much setup, and to which so many things are straight up immune. Mass calm? I guess 1120 is pretty cool. It messes up bolt splash damage though.
135 is the mass stun everything in the room spell.
>Still, ewave is a pretty awesome spell, there is probably not an empath or cleric in game that doesn't wish they had it.
It's nice when underhunting or hunting like level, but once you start to uphunt (second floor of Nelemar, the Scatter, warcamps), e-wave doesn't work nearly as well as the CS-based mass disablers. My empaths and cleric certainly don't wish they had it, even when solo'ing. The only reason I don't use 135 more often in bandits is because there's the chance to accidentally injure or kill others who may wander in at the wrong time. Otherwise, it's far more effective than 410.
135 is the mass stun everything in the room spell.
>Still, ewave is a pretty awesome spell, there is probably not an empath or cleric in game that doesn't wish they had it.
It's nice when underhunting or hunting like level, but once you start to uphunt (second floor of Nelemar, the Scatter, warcamps), e-wave doesn't work nearly as well as the CS-based mass disablers. My empaths and cleric certainly don't wish they had it, even when solo'ing. The only reason I don't use 135 more often in bandits is because there's the chance to accidentally injure or kill others who may wander in at the wrong time. Otherwise, it's far more effective than 410.
CIRCADIANZEBRA
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 04:48 PM CDT
| I agree with you here and while, like Estild said, we currently don't have anything attached to this it is definitely on my mind and something I'm thinking about. |
| For what it's worth, it's pretty easy for a water mage to grab the necessary air lore to be able to forcibly cast CoE under lightning. Solution? Nope. I know it isn't, but I'll throw it out there for now. :) |
| ~ Konacon |
You are right about the lightning, and after the ELR I'm expecting a lot of wizards to dabble slightly in a few lores, if not all four to some degree (though I can't say that a majority will do this, even though right now most suggestions for training have some EL:Air built in for Tonis Bolt, so I don't think it will be a stretch to say that many water mages will pick it up).
Still, of the five options, Minor Cold is looking pretty weak. Any chance we could get a preview of the Unnamed Air Bolt? Pretty please? ;)
LADYFLEUR
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 04:54 PM CDT
>Probably the most effective method of us getting you what you want while considering overall game integrity is to simply break down your desires to more basic parts with examples and suggestions to back up the breakdown. Example, if wind blows on my mage he dies I need something to help him survive a single failed attack like the other professions have. Example: aivren bit me because warlock dispelled 503 and I instantly died on a 115 endroll. Suggestion improved 520 via blah blah blah.
During the 29 second Rapid Fire cooldown, I have no options in the Scatter to hunt safely. If a fetish master isn't disabled or dead in 3 seconds, I'll be the one dead. What should I do then? 519 isn't an option because without a 240-style CS booster, I can't use it to reliably uphunt in places like the Scatter or sentries/GWEs on the second floor of Nelemar. Without 703 or a mass CS-based disabler (enhanced by a CS-booster spell such as 240 or 340) to disable those sentries and GWEs, I can't stand in front of it for even 9-12 seconds to plink at it with bolts in the Rapid Fire cooldown. What do I do then?
If I'm in Nelemar, I can run to the third floor and leave those spawned creatures running around unchecked and ready to injure others walking in. That doesn't seem like a good option. If I'm in the Scatter, it's a long run back to a safe room. Do I just keep dodging bullets running around like a chicken with my head cut off until I'm able to go on the rapid offense again?
Tell me you have some suggested solutions here besides waiting out 29 seconds in a dangerous, difficult to access hunting area or avoiding them altogether, which isn't something any of the other 3 pures has to do.
During the 29 second Rapid Fire cooldown, I have no options in the Scatter to hunt safely. If a fetish master isn't disabled or dead in 3 seconds, I'll be the one dead. What should I do then? 519 isn't an option because without a 240-style CS booster, I can't use it to reliably uphunt in places like the Scatter or sentries/GWEs on the second floor of Nelemar. Without 703 or a mass CS-based disabler (enhanced by a CS-booster spell such as 240 or 340) to disable those sentries and GWEs, I can't stand in front of it for even 9-12 seconds to plink at it with bolts in the Rapid Fire cooldown. What do I do then?
If I'm in Nelemar, I can run to the third floor and leave those spawned creatures running around unchecked and ready to injure others walking in. That doesn't seem like a good option. If I'm in the Scatter, it's a long run back to a safe room. Do I just keep dodging bullets running around like a chicken with my head cut off until I'm able to go on the rapid offense again?
Tell me you have some suggested solutions here besides waiting out 29 seconds in a dangerous, difficult to access hunting area or avoiding them altogether, which isn't something any of the other 3 pures has to do.
BLACKKOBOLD
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 04:58 PM CDT
<So, it's difficult giving direct feedback on suggestions without sending the wrong impression. Just because I like part of a suggestion doesn't mean I like the whole. Just because I like the <suggestion completely doesn't mean it'll be adopted and implemented. Just because I don't like an idea doesn't mean parts of all have merit.
Well, I guess we're at an impasse then. Asking for a conversation when one side is unwilling to speak is a non-starter. The best we can do is post suggestions and hope something good comes from it.
<Probably the most effective method of us getting you what you want while considering overall game integrity is to simply break down your desires to more basic parts with examples and <suggestions to back up the breakdown. Example, if wind blows on my mage he dies I need something to help him survive a single failed attack like the other professions have. Example: aivren <bit me because warlock dispelled 503 and I instantly died on a 115 endroll. Suggestion improved 520 via blah blah blah.
Yeah, I think I've done that. I've explained why I want to make the changes I propose. I always do. But I receive no response on that part of the suggestion. So far, all I get is a GM shows up, copies one line he doesn't like, says no, and that's the end of the discussion. I'm sure other things are going on behind the scenes, but it's difficult to feel fully part of this when that's all the feedback you get. Tell me why my ideas suck. Go line by line! Rip it apart! Go ahead! Just give me something to work with!
~Taverkin
Well, I guess we're at an impasse then. Asking for a conversation when one side is unwilling to speak is a non-starter. The best we can do is post suggestions and hope something good comes from it.
<Probably the most effective method of us getting you what you want while considering overall game integrity is to simply break down your desires to more basic parts with examples and <suggestions to back up the breakdown. Example, if wind blows on my mage he dies I need something to help him survive a single failed attack like the other professions have. Example: aivren <bit me because warlock dispelled 503 and I instantly died on a 115 endroll. Suggestion improved 520 via blah blah blah.
Yeah, I think I've done that. I've explained why I want to make the changes I propose. I always do. But I receive no response on that part of the suggestion. So far, all I get is a GM shows up, copies one line he doesn't like, says no, and that's the end of the discussion. I'm sure other things are going on behind the scenes, but it's difficult to feel fully part of this when that's all the feedback you get. Tell me why my ideas suck. Go line by line! Rip it apart! Go ahead! Just give me something to work with!
~Taverkin
GS4-VIDUUS
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 05:21 PM CDT
Please help me out here. You JUST said that "not everything revolves around 2x+ capped mages" and your idea of a lateral shift was that the spell would be accessible to more mages.
Now you're saying that it's not a desire for less than 2x capped people to use it more. So where is the lateral shift? Into the ether? The end result is a net loss in achievable power, the end.
I'll go through it one more time.
There is a disabling version of the spell - it's damage will be reduced over existing 519 (though it will still be decent), but it's ability to be used as a disabler will work in much same way that the current version works. This is to preserve use by people that need it in this manner. It will invoke RT on the cast and keep the creature occupied with fiery goodness.
Then there will be the damage version
The base damage/crit of the spell is being improved. That means 0 lore casters can use the spell as more than simply a 19 mana disabler. They will be able to use it for scoring kills. Training in fire lore will boost it's effectiveness, it will have diminishing returns but the bar will be high for where those bottom out.
The goal is to have a spell that can be used by all mages, not just the ones that specialize in fire. However, if you specialize in fire then your lored version of the spell will be significantly more effective than a 0 lore mage.
Viduus
Now you're saying that it's not a desire for less than 2x capped people to use it more. So where is the lateral shift? Into the ether? The end result is a net loss in achievable power, the end.
I'll go through it one more time.
There is a disabling version of the spell - it's damage will be reduced over existing 519 (though it will still be decent), but it's ability to be used as a disabler will work in much same way that the current version works. This is to preserve use by people that need it in this manner. It will invoke RT on the cast and keep the creature occupied with fiery goodness.
Then there will be the damage version
The base damage/crit of the spell is being improved. That means 0 lore casters can use the spell as more than simply a 19 mana disabler. They will be able to use it for scoring kills. Training in fire lore will boost it's effectiveness, it will have diminishing returns but the bar will be high for where those bottom out.
The goal is to have a spell that can be used by all mages, not just the ones that specialize in fire. However, if you specialize in fire then your lored version of the spell will be significantly more effective than a 0 lore mage.
Viduus
LADYFLEUR
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 05:24 PM CDT
>The goal is to have a spell that can be used by all mages, not just the ones that specialize in fire. However, if you specialize in fire then your lored version of the spell will be significantly more effective than a 0 lore mage.
Okay, but then where is the problem in keeping the instant kill option open at the high end of the lore thresholds? You know, to reward those who have trained a lot in a single lore?
If this isn't an option, then I'd still like a CS power up or a solution to how I can safely hunt the 3 areas mentioned above like all of the other pures can.
Okay, but then where is the problem in keeping the instant kill option open at the high end of the lore thresholds? You know, to reward those who have trained a lot in a single lore?
If this isn't an option, then I'd still like a CS power up or a solution to how I can safely hunt the 3 areas mentioned above like all of the other pures can.
ASPEN
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 05:28 PM CDT
>Yes, bolts need to either be aimed or result in a guaranteed kill given a high enough AS/DS differential, similar to the way CS completely bypasses EBP and guarantees a kill given enough training, enhancives, and other spell boosts.
Then CS needs to have -50 when you're knocked over, -20 when you're stunned, etc. Actually we should get rid of it, just make everything use AS/DS.
This makes a lot of sense. I'm glad you pointed this out. Of course, if we gain the ability to aim bolts, can we also aim warding spells? I mean, DC hits 4 random body areas, that is pretty lame, right? I want to be able to dictate head, neck, left eye, right eye.
.
Really, the only spell I know of that can guarantee a kill in 1 hit is Evil Eye, and it requires a very high endroll to the point of being fairly nonfunctional like level. It is also a pass/fail spell, you don't wound anything with it.
Everything else is more or less no different from bolting. Sometimes one cast, sometimes two, sometimes three, sometimes four. The casts you don't kill at least wound, with the odds of the next cast causing death approaching 100% as you continue to wound the critter.
OBSERVER
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 05:30 PM CDT
I'm not sure if wizards would care to include this option, but perhaps evoke (or some other version of Immolate) could be buffed by allowing for the chance for the immolated creature to be completely destroyed, thus not leaving any treasure?
THORNBROOK
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 05:32 PM CDT
From Viduus's prompting, a few suggestions I had. I've only skimmed the posts in this folder these past few weeks...so if someone else already had something identical/similiar I apologize.
520-Stoneskin
So while the addition to stoneskin was in fact an addition without taking anything away...I think it could offer a few more layers of benefit to varying degree. One reason stoneskin is lackluster is that pures try so hard to NOT get hit in the first place and in leathers any hit can be a loss of limb, organ, or life.
One creature my warrior currently hunts has this annoying defensive feature.
You swing a magnificently crafted invar warhammer at a greater earth elemental!
Your warhammer is deflected harmlessly off of the the earth elemental's side!
Roundtime: 5 sec.
Possible result #1
You already used this ability for the 401/406/414 but to me it fits here just as well. A simple deflection.
Earth elementals have a similiar yet more annoying ability as well.
You strike the earth elemental, but your warhammer connects awkwardly with a rocky protrusion! The jarring strike numbs your grasp!
Roundtime: 3 sec.
Roundtime: 5 sec.
Possible result #2
Same deflection but with the additional rt
Possible result #3
Same deflection but able to render their weapon useless or disarmed. ( I was thinking either disarm like the monk spell Brace does or adamantine, another approach would be similiar to sunder shield where the creature still holds it but can't use it properly) As a disarmed weapon would waste a creatures entire "round" of action RT this would be approx 5-6 seconds of RT wouldn't it? I know some things are faster like tsarks and destroyers but not sure how many other exceptions there are.
Possible result #4
The vibration flares just as they were added.
One final thought about stoneskin as a whole...as these suggestions would cause far more 'uses' of the stoneskin it would then get used up faster. Would it be possible to code it so that each body part group (using ASG coverage groupings) has its own stoneskin durability and as the stone skin on that body part causes the flare/deflect only that part suffers a weakening of the stoneskin.
Weaponfire proposal
Moving on to something to benefit warmages. I'm sure I saw someone talking about boosting weaponfire but I don't recall how. My vague understanding of immolater weapons is also the source of this idea.
Weaponfire- When cast on a weapon it creates an aura around the weapon allowing an additional flare on every swing. Have it be so the flare damage is a fairly static number of say 10-15 before lores. (similiar in potency to paladin crusade of heavy damage weighting pre/lore) With the proposed haste changes, what do you do during your haste cooldown? Why you wave the weapon at the creature causing damage like the immolate weapons do, perhaps a bonus to waving while in offensive stance to promote this usage more by warmages yet still giving the option to the casters.. Now to make this work factor in a new resource to give you your charges. Base this resource on your total number of elemental lore ranks. Either 1 lore rank=1 resource, or 1 lore bonus=1 resource. A swing reduces this number by 1, a wave of the weapon reduces it by something like 10-15. If you've used up your resource charges, the same cost in mana is applied instead. Resource regeneration I'd leave up to a NIR with a spreadsheet. The intent is that you have an alternate attack form during the haste cooldown period which last proposal would be between the minute 5 and 6 mark. Using this resource you could either try and knock out your hunt before minute 5, or ration your resource+mana to have an alternative for that minute.
ASPEN
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 05:40 PM CDT
>Here's the thing, Estild: the base functionality of those two spells is, "Mess with what attacked me whether it hits me or not."
>The base functionality of Stone Skin is, "Remove a little bit of the damage that gets through to me when I do get hit (without reducing the critical effect at all!)... and then take myself out of consideration, once I get hit hard enough."
>Even the bonus effect, of "Mess with what attacked me... mmmaaaaayyyyybbee" (starting at 1% chance, with Seed<High>) requires the Mage to get pasted. First.
>Compared to Always. And. Every. Swing. Against. The. Wearer. Hit. Or. Miss.
>Tell me there's a fair comparison.
(Even with the fact that Pestilence starts with only 25% chance to react and 5 charges with Seed<High> to increase. Even so: It. Gets. Checked. Every. Attack.)
1. Estild has a valid point, base functionality != lore benefit. You also have the best professional circle (700s - by default it has to be the best professional circle because the profession is otherwise saddled with two minor circles and since it is officially Simu's policy that major circles > minor circles sorcerers would OBVIOUSLY be at a disadvantage unless it was also policy that the 700s should be the best) vs a major circle spell.
2. Krakii has a valid point...somewhat... because it does really little for many wizards. I believe Stone Skin more or less replaced unpain which more or less existed to help hobbity mages with their so low healthpoints in a different era when getting hit happened more often (or does it still happen to all the commoners? you tell me.) Obviously it is far less useful to strong strapping dwarf or giantman wizards.
3. However... Krakii I have to ultimately side with Estild here (and considering I've criticized him roundly on the forums in the past, hopefully people don't think I'm a mere brown noser, I've worked very hard to cultivate a reputation of being an irascible thorn in the side). Damage reduction is a really good benefit. Reactive flares are offense, damage reduction is defense. You kill potentially dozens of critters a hunt, you have 1 body, 1 life, to keep safe. Game mechanics galore always value defense benefits more than offensive ones. The GMs have gotten a little happy with self chargers lately, but typically they limit defensive ones to a handful a day, where offensive ones can go as high as 25 uses a day. Yes... 520 needs a hit for its base functionality to work, but if you're actually getting hit, that is when you need the spell.
If I were going to be getting hit on a regular basis I'd much rather have 520 than 716.
I do, however, agree that perhaps it could get a little something on the base functionality side of things as well.... maybe some help with the damage, but maybe an extra benefit like phantom earthlore ranks or something. If your skin is all stone your fists are heavier and maybe your tremor pounds would be stronger? Maybe added reduction but only against certain damage types. Just ideas.
ASPEN
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes
09/02/2015 05:42 PM CDT
>135 is the mass stun everything in the room spell.
Oh right, that spell is so great I forgot I even had it..... ;/
