Weapon Deflection will now decrease a target's damage factor by 10%, stackable up to five times. In addition, a group-friendly open cast version of the spell has been created. Every 20 ranks of Elemental Lore, Earth will allow the open cast version of the spell to affect an additional target.

Enjoy!

GameMaster Cyraex

Maybe we could get some wizards together to figure out how to take the 'no warding' roll portion of 412 and incorporate that magic into 413. Then we'd be cooking with elemental fire!

-- Robert

The ELR will never end! VIVE LA ELR! ~ Konacon

ASPEN:

How does duration look on this now?

The duration of this spell has not changed. It is still 60 seconds + (5 * difference in level between caster and target) (not cumulative, minimum 60 sec.)

GameMaster Cyraex

I feel I should be clearer. -50% DF isn't a bad debuff. But the cost in both mana and time (60 mana over 15sec!) is way too extreme to justify. Even if you were affecting a whole room full of enemies.

Especially for casters who would then need to follow this up with ANOTHER ton of mana to actually kill the things. 410+ 2x Cone seems like a way better way to spend your time and effort.

>Yeah I feel like if they had made 413 ward-free and given it the ability to be open cast via fire lore, you'd actually have a useful spell on your hands as a CS caster.

that's way OP

I could see maybe some invasion boss critter that is just destroying things, if several people hit it with 412 quickly it might save some lives. That is a very niche use though.

---

Give that man a prize.

Viduus

>Yeah I feel like if they had made 413 ward-free and given it the ability to be open cast via fire lore, you'd actually have a useful spell on your hands as a CS caster.

>that's way OP

Maybe a little. Just keep the current push-down and add open cast would perhaps be a bit more reasonable.

>>Are you saying the spell was designed for this type of situation? If so, really?

Not every spell will be useful in every situation you face, especially true of the minor circle.

The spell was designed decades ago to give your target -25 AS without requiring a warding check.

The current version had a practical benefit added, and a situational benefit added through stacking.

>>Sorry if I don't applaud the game design

The wizard player population has made this a statement of the obvious.

>>Is there some crazy obscure use to 514 I'm not aware of as well? And 512? Is the entire wizard list just a set of spells that are designed to be used once in a character's lifetime? That would explain a lot.

First, 412 isn't exclusive to the wizard class, it's shared by those other lesser classes.

Second, suddenly 412 is somehow lessened by the additional utility? The spell was fine yesterday and suddenly today it's crap? No? It was always crap? Maybe, but it's funny that no suggestions for improvements have been made on it in years. Yet suddenly it's the poster child, like every other spell, for how awful it is to be a mage.

You guys aren't doing yourself any favors by pissing on every single release. Constructive criticism is fine, usually welcomed.

You've around 40 spells that currently have more functionality today than they did yesterday, yet somehow that increased functionality has weakened you as a whole. Your lore training goes further today than it did yesterday, yet somehow you're worse off today? Many spells that were perfectly acceptable yesterday are suddenly crap today, and every single one is being offered up as proof that your class can barely function. Worse, you feel justified in this "righteous crusade" because you've been hit hard by nerfs to your big 3 and it's crippled your class... Except you know... you haven't actually been nerfed at this point, so you're not actually coming across as the innocent victims that have been unjustly wronged that you'd like to appear to be.

We get it, you've a lot of spells in your lists that you'd like to be reviewed and revamped in an official spell review.

Viduus

>What is the default number of targets for the open version?

20 ranks unlocks the open cast for 1 additional target, or 2 targets total.

Heck I put together a very well thought out post in regards to water lore for 403 and 404 detailing how the lores should be buff given once the spells are cast (rather than needing them active to receive the lore benefit), and the reasons why this should be the case. I also gave examples of how the minimum RT of 5 seconds to disarm greatly diminishes the faster disarm RT from lores via 404. I gave plenty of constructive feedback on these changes. I invested a god awful amount of TPs into water lore on my rogue to test these two benefits. I took the time to go back through my logs to compare my disarm time pre water lore and gave examples of disarm times post water lore.

I had to practically beg for a GM to respond to my post and all I got was a "We are currently discussing this."

That was what, 2-3 weeks ago? So how are those discussions going? Or is it just easier to make an example out of people for "whining" while demanding constructive criticism than it is to actually read, process, and respond to the constructive criticism?

>sorcs who just got finished receiving many buffs to the sorc circle with no nerfs at all.

I can't call them nerfs but there were at least two negatives: (1) sorcerers lost quake and the ability to knock critters down while one room away (2) potential animate dead duration has been greatly reduced.

Yes, I sometimes used quake for practical reasons and will miss it. I never animate creatures but several sorcerer players have had negative things to say about the duration change.

Of course, sorcerers were already famously nerfed back when I was originally playing my character. But this is not a discussion about sorcerers in particular. I just like to be clear about where sorcerers stand right now and what our recent review achieved. If you want to discuss that in more detail, you can start a thread on the sorcerer forum.

I think about lore effects in the context of a minor circle and I think of things like:

> Spiritual Lore, Blessings provides a chance to temporarily experience a +25 boost in a warding attempt. The chance of success is 1% at 10 lore ranks, and has a maximum of 12% at 186 lore ranks. (Spirit Warding II) [That is Seed 10]

> Spiritual Lore, Blessings increases resistance on the second attempt to ward a disease. The rate of increase is +2 at 1 lore rank, and has a maximum of +38 at 190 lore ranks. (Disease Resist)

> Training in Blessings provides a chance for this spell to remain active for an additional attack. The chance for the first additional attack starts at 3% with 5 ranks and increases by 3% at each step of a seed 5 summation, reaching 48% at 200 ranks. Each additional attack halves the chance for the spell to remain active. (Spirit Strike)

So, there's some cool stuff in there if you have the TPs to make a run at 200 ranks of spiritual lore. Sorcerers, the class I know best, are probably better off with Spiritual Lore, Summoning. A million xp worth of that will get you enough ranks to cast fire spirit a little better, locate anywhere, and make call lightning work quicker on your boxes. That's kind of cool if you have the TPs. Maybe a goal for somewhere around triple cap? I mean, what do you expect from these lores? If you want them to be more powerful, you have a problem with their overall design and not just the ELR.

And, to be clear, I am considering all of this in the context of lores overall and in regard to minor circles in particular. The issue of the pending wizard nerfs and what (if anything) could balance them (or take the edge off) is beyond me and really uninteresting to me until more information is revealed.

@Silvaen

You're not wrong in that expectations should be managed regarding minor circle lores. But I find some pretty nice gems in there like locate and 117.

Also I'm not finding the in-circle ones to be particularly better, for the most part. Hell the best defensive ELR boost was probably the change to 401/406/414! And the best offensive one to 415!
[both of which I supported in their respective threads, btw, I haven't been a purely negative Nancy throughout this affair].

But what I'm not seeing is the really strong in-circle boosts like demonology giving:
- a 440% boost to making things weightless with phase.
- 100% safety in cross-realm planar shift (at 120 ranks mind you, not 200!)
- 28% increase in 712 retribution effectiveness at just 50 ranks.
- 100% increase in your odds of success with 725 at 50 ranks.

Giving a scatter-shot of infinitesimal boosts across 10 spells really doesn't have the same impact psychologically or mechanically. Especially when talking about offensive spells. Giving 5 spells a 5% increase is not nearly as beneficial as giving 1 spell a 25% increase in effectiveness.

>But what I'm not seeing is the really strong in-circle boosts like demonology giving:

Ha. It's funny you use demonology because I've complained that sorcerous lore is too lopsided toward necromancy (it is). But, here's the thing we've unearthed, lores are cool when they unlock new powers or reliable bonuses. You can't change your hunting approach or game behavior on a 12% chance to do anything, especially if it's a defensive power. So, in that regard, I think this change to Weapon Deflection is pretty cool.

>Why? If the end result of "slot-machine" additions is 100% coverage, tell me why that's any worse than some other system.

Because a 13% chance for reactive flares after taking damage is stupid.

A 25% chance (with 200 ranks of lore) for a 20ETD boost is an unreliable way to hunt.

>Why? Other than you don't like the TP cost.

Because it's a counter intuitive way of doing things. It's one thing to "unlock" abilities at certain thresholds, that actually makes sense. But to say you gain a 1% chance to activate this flare at 10 ranks, then 2% at 21 ranks, then 3% at 32 ranks is ridiculous. As you're leveling up and investing in lores you aren't seeing any immediate benefit, this is compounded by the fact that seed 10 is a crazy high amount of lore required in the first place.

Make things use seed 1 (or .5 seed!) and make it so each point in lore does something. Instead of 10 ranks just to get that 1% make it so each rank gives .1%. Yes it's the same end result but at least we can make use of every point of lore instead of always reaching for those thresholds, especially when high seeds like 10 make it so after 186 ranks in lore you literally get no benefit for taking that lore up to 202.

General ELR comment:

% chance changes to defensive abilities cannot be relied upon, and therefore are hard to be seen as beneficial. % chance for offensive abilities are far more forgiving.

Perhaps some of the % chance abilities could be changed from that format to a permanent one, with the benefits themselves lessened accordingly. True, that means you may only get 1-3 DS from a given spell via lores as opposed to the occasional +10, but as is often said, it is the cumulative effect of the ELR on a whole which makes it worthwhile.

412 specific question: Has the - 25 AS feature been removed from 412, to be replaced with - 10% DF, or is it in addition to?

Observer, I checked before updating the wiki. The -25 AS is still there (and does not stack).

<<Game balance is decided by hard numbers. Right now mages are the single most played class in the game, using that metric it stands to reason that they can't be that bad off.

I think that has a lot more to do with the usefulness of wizards as both enchanters and spell bots more than anything else. Checking average kills (or combat xp generated) per death seems like a more suitable metric for balancing a class.

And expecting us, a random group of self-appointed know-it-all jerks, to create a compelling argument together that doesn't self-contradict based on numbers we don't have access to... Seems optimistic.

Without seeing the numbers I think it's reasonably safe to say wizard's threats are:
CMans
Creature Maneuvers
Spirit TD
Sorc TD
Stuns
RT attacks
Ranged attacks (more for warmages, but they definitely suck for me)
DS attacks.
Bolt attacks.
Elem TD attacks.

In roughly that order. And yet the lion's share of the defensive increases have been stacked onto those bottom three, least needed defenses. And the biggest change to this paradigm is the haste nerf (with changes, as of yet undisclosed) which will catapult RT attacks further up that threat hierarchy. So I would say, after it's all said and done, it's entirely possible wizards will be in a worse place defensively.

>I suppose what would be nice is if you could cast this spell without a target and it would affect the room, rather than at the targets.

that is the lore benefit, although it may be buggy at the moment. +1 target per 20 ranks Earth lore

>that is the lore benefit, although it may be buggy at the moment. +1 target per 20 ranks Earth lore

My idea would be to not target based on creatures, but based on incoming swings. That way, you don't have to worry about only negating 2 of the 5 targets, you instead reduce the next X amount of swings from any source of the room. The number of swings reduced would be a baseline X + 1 per seed Y of lore Z.

I think the targeted and multi-target versions should remain, but this would make for a nice option in some situations where i've chosen to make a stand against a large number of creatures.