According to the wiki:

>Training in Elemental Lore, Fire and/or Elemental Lore, Water will increase the spell's damage factor. The increase is .001 per two ranks for the first 100 ranks and .001 per four ranks for ranks 101 to 200. There is no requirement to train in both lores to increase the damage factors for this spell. Total DF bonus with 200 lore ranks is .075.

https://gswiki.play.net/Minor_Steam_(1707)

~ Methais

So you don't have to train in fire lore to unlock one of the best bolt spells in the game..

Since water lore already increases the damage if you are a water mage those 20 ranks of fire might be a waste.

http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif

An interesting thought - but I was under the impression that only. . . um. . . that few wizards trained to 20 ranks in EL:W, but almost every wizard trained to 20 ranks EL:F.

So, that's why I asked. I am not clear why EL:F has suddenly lost its allure. . .

Doug

>> I would imagine since the GMs are pretty stuck on water lore for enchanting, and people want that benefit, so they want more combat uses for that lore.

Could be. Hope it doesn't happen - there needs to be diversification.

And - already exists anyway.

Doug

Why does there need to be diversification? Some people, myself included, don't want to be a jack of all trades. I want to be a master of one.

Diversification could be done in a much different way as well. Our spells could just be shells. You could just have 4 bolt spells, minor/major bolt & minor/major ball. You could have it cast a random element until you get 20 ranks in an element. Once you have 20 ranks you can unlock that element for the spells. This could be expanded to any spell in our arsenal really.

I should say that I hate this idea and hope it never gets implemented like this. The plus side though is that it would free up a lot of spells slots for more/better spells. With recent revelations I doubt anyone wants to work on wizards though, so those slots would just sit empty forever.

http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif

<<Why does there need to be diversification? Some people, myself included, don't want to be a jack of all trades. I want to be a master of one.

Good. And I don't. That's diversification in action. But if no lore mattered, and every lore did what every other lore did, we wouldn't be diverse.

Utility does utility - want to master it? Or dabble? Or ignore it? But when utility does combat, what's the point?

Doug

>Why does there need to be diversification? Some people, myself included, don't want to be a jack of all trades. I want to be a master of one.

Good question. Think about it this way: If you had to train in at least one lore, but lores provided no benefit, would you specialize in one or diversify?

>Diversification could be done in a much different way as well. Our spells could just be shells. You could just have 4 bolt spells, minor/major bolt & minor/major ball. You could have it cast a random element until you get 20 ranks in an element. Once you have 20 ranks you can unlock that element for the spells. This could be expanded to any spell in our arsenal really.
>
>I should say that I hate this idea and hope it never gets implemented like this. The plus side though is that it would free up a lot of spells slots for more/better spells. With recent revelations I doubt anyone wants to work on wizards though, so those slots would just sit empty forever.

Most of the other pure spell lists are geared to work this way, though. Sorcerers have a few choices, but spiritual pures use a couple offensive spells that improve in power based on lore training. The variety in the 900/500 lists really works against wizards. I'd like to see more variety in the other lists with immunities/resistances, the same as wizards have to deal with. And I don't consider this a nerf.

With my suggestion, depending on the ranks required, you could still get multiple benefits if you wanted to be a jack of all trades. You would be able to choose which benefit you wanted for each utility/defensive spell.

http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif

>>That's the vision for elemental lores that I was hoping for and would still love to see someday.

You'd probably base that off of 'bolt spell' and 'ball spell' and then paint to match lore, wouldn't you, Robert?

How would you handle something like Haste, in the 'desired state'?

Doug

>> You'd probably base that off of 'bolt spell' and 'ball spell' and then paint to match lore, wouldn't you, Robert?

Not necessarily, no. I'd probably keep a lot of the existing bolt / ball spells but add more power or additional features to the dedicated / specialist wizards that focused on related elements... maybe water bolts have a chance to freeze your opponent if you are dedicated enough in water lore (random example)?

>> How would you handle something like Haste, in the 'desired state'?

I'll ponder it some over my vacation. I wouldn't have all elemental lores modify all spells (e.g. not every spell needs to be improved by every lore). Instead I would look to provide 'similar' benefits (not the same, think more in terms of value or weight) across our spells for the dedicated / focused wizard.

Base haste would be available spell:
- Air Lore might improve haste much like it does today or even more at a dedicated level.
- Earth Lore probably would have no effect on haste but might instead improve mage armor such that you could improve the ASG base of your armor (someone truly dedicated to earth lore for example might able to be a wizard in the equivalent of plate for example). I could possibly live with base haste with that as a potential trade-off as a dedicated Earth Wizard.
- Fire Lore I might be disposed to lean more completely offensive for the haste trade-off and offer some sort of combat aura.
- Water Lore might offer increased magic defense.

Basically all the spells would work at a base level. Dedicated training in lores would unlock some abilities at certain thresholds (e.g. maybe the armor ASG improvement for wizard armor doesn't begin to kick in until 100 ranks of earth lore minimum, maybe you can start having a chance ford ouble strikes / casts with haste at 100 ranks of air lore, maybe you start having a certain level of magic resistance at 100 ranks of water lore, etc.

Someone training in 50 ranks of each lore (the base generalist) would unlock some base / minor functions of each element but wouldn't have any of the awesome benefits of dedicating themselves to a single or a couple of lores.

The above isn't balanced / clearly worked out but hopefully it paints a picture of a general concept. The idea would be to take each element and add some amazing features that fit the flavor of the element and then balance it out against the loss of some features from the other spells with a minimal investment. Generalist should still work and provide some functionality across the spectrum, but specialist should have some very unique / powerful benefits at the cost of having some spells minimized.

Thinking a bit more... maybe lore benefits scale spell power from 1-100, unlock a minor benefit at 50 which scales from 50-100, unlock a major benefit at 100 which further scales at you go further up to 200. That would be the basic framework - maybe you add a few intermediate steps to unlock additional elemental specific abilities / features along the way. Now with that framework in mind, start identifying what those unlocks might be and weighing them against each other.

All lore specializations would be viable - some might be more powerful in various situations or more powerful at hunting in general but then others might be amazing at enchanting or some other skill - all would still be able to hunt / enchant / etc regardless though.

Again... concepts that haven't been fleshed out but trying to give a sense of how it might work. I think I'm rambling a bit as well - it's late for me!

-- Robert

>Now you are more effective with bolts in your chosen dedicated lore but as a pure generalist you wouldn't see this benefit.

>Everyone can still hunt as a generalist or without any lore training. Specialists would be better in their chosen element but would still be limited in that the benefit may not work in all situations (e.g. Being a fire mage won't help you in this regard when casting at fire creatures because you'll likely be casting a different elemental bolt at the creature).

I totally disagree with this truehand/lore unlock concept because it would create much more limitations for wizards than for any other pure. You don't see sorcerers, empaths, or clerics being "boxed" into a speciality or only being able to effectively use their spells if they have 100 ranks in a lore, and they only have two or three way lore splits. Sorcerers don't have to choose at all between demonology and necromancy (it's a pretty even split with limited marginal benefits to going all out in one), and therefore they get the best of all worlds. I'm tired of the forced limitations that wizards have to face due to the 4-way lore split and repeated requests for extremely high, 100 lore thresholds to even attempt to achieve a similar result that the other pures enjoy without sacrifice. Choose your bolt as you prefer to hunt, but don't force everyone to pick up 100 ranks in a specific lore to try to achieve the same thing that excessive CS does with no additional effort.

The lore unlock for bolts and lore choices don't align in any case, due to the assignment of elemental lores to fill specific functions, which often contradicts with the bolts one might choose to use.

Okay, so we have at least 2 issues with lores:

First, wizards have less benefit to specializing than we do for generalizing. Creating high threshold benefits like Doug's truehand concept would help with this.

Second, as Fleurs has pointed out, wizards shouldn't feel more feel compelled to train 200 ranks of lores than clerics, empaths, or sorcerers. If the other professions can train 100 ranks of lores, in any combination, and not feel like they need to double train, then wizards may be at a disadvantage. This is significant because 50 ranks in each lore is doubled. Is it normal for all pures to double lores?

I guess I meant: Is it normal for pures to double lores on the way up to cap? Would a cleric or empath do this? Would a sorcerer? Would a wizard gain more by double training early on than a cleric or empath, for example?

>You also don't see any other Pure profession with the (potential, suggested, brainstormed) capability of not-getting d100 rolls below (20, 40, 60, 80).

Yes, we do. It's called 340. I don't believe in taking cookie cutter spell copies of other profession's spells/abilities. That's why 950 is different from 240 yet delivers a comparable result, except it's not on a single target basis.

>why do critters get them (and are so heavily trained in them)?

creatures are .5x. Wizards and other pures are expected to be 1x.

>creatures are .5x. Wizards and other pures are expected to be 1x

It's also depends on the spell. It's been posted that for 917 creatures are .25x in EL:W & EL:F.

Generally, it's .5x though.

-Drumpel

>ATTUNE should grant phantom lore ranks of your attuned element. I'd say have it add 100 ranks and completely eliminate the 4-way split design problem altogether that's been plaguing only wizards, and with (I would assume) great ease to code compared to some of the other fixes we've proposed to deal with a 4-way split.

You'd run into issues for some people if 100 phantom ranks were granted for ATTUNEd element.

Take my wizard for example, he's ATTUNEd to earth. If being attuned means 100 phantom ranks to EL:E, he already has 134 EL:E ranks he's trained in. That puts him at 234 ranks.

If the max any lore we have can be 252 (with +50 from enhancives) then he'd be almost there. What would happen should he exceed those 252 ranks and hit 302 if he were to only focus EL:E?

My guess would be they would need to adjust the numbers a bit for balancing issues and not just be a quick, simply fix.

On the other hand, should ATTUNE grant 50 phantom elemental lore ranks, a single lore focused wizard would obtain 252 ranks if they ATTUNE to the same lore they put all their TPs into. Maybe this would be an easier application since it shouldn't require any re-balancing. It may require some tinkering with enhancements to not allow phantom and trained ranks to exceed 252.

I don't know, it would need some work no matter how you look at it, I just don't know what would be easier. I just think it would be nice if ATTUNE did provide some phantom lore ranks. If it were the case, I may be willing to shift a few ranks of my current EL:E to other lores, such as EL:W because I wouldn't really be losing out on anything.

-Drumpel

>I'd suggest you come hunt with the Elf, but. . . it wouldn't work out.

I agree. You wouldn't be able to keep up with me.

>Which is also, ironically, what exists today. And I'd like to see it improved. Improving doesn't mean trying to find a way to circumvent 25% of the framework to me.

Except there's little to no benefit to specializing anymore. It's there as in it technically exists in the fact that you can train 202 fire if you want. But don't expect it to be worth it either. Which is why I also mentioned powerful rewards for lore specialization.

>So far, I've seen a couple of suggestions (not from you, though?) that would basically require rewriting spells and lores.

Yes, not from me. Because I'd prefer to not wait several years for a gigantic system rewrite that may or may not ever see the light of day that probably isn't necessary in the first place. And I'm pretty sure nobody at Simu would want to do it either when there are most likely other options available that are better and easier/faster to implement,

>I get that you need a platform to stand on while trying to change the world - but undercutting someone else's hard work as a platform never plays out well in my opinion. I'd like to hear more about how to make these 4 lores attractive enough to make real choices.

Sorry, but if something is bad, it's bad. If the person behind it takes that personally, then well...that's on them. That doesn't mean I have a problem with the person or am attacking them.

If I put something out and it's bad, I would be insulted if someone who felt that way didn't tell me it was bad.

Can it be fixed in its current state? Sure. Can it be fixed much more easily by ditching the lore = roles model? I think so.


>My guess would be they would need to adjust the numbers a bit for balancing issues and not just be a quick, simply fix.

For every 1 rank of your attuned element's lore trained over 100, you lose 1 phantom lore rank.

That way if you're earth attuned and you pick up 200 earth lore ranks, you still only have 200 ranks of earth lore instead of 300. Which means you just wasted your attunement and a bunch of TPs, which means nobody will ever do this.

>I'd like to hear more about how to make these 4 lores attractive enough to make real choices.

We can start by getting rid of "roles" for lores.

>Let's try something simple and straightforward. What would you position to be the 'choice' to make between Air, Earth, Water and Fire? That's what I struggle with in this discussion, frankly, so I'd appreciate your help.

If you're expecting me to post specific spell ideas with formulas and numbers and all that, it's not gonna happen, because it's probably not gonna happen in game either, and then I just wasted a bunch of time coming up with, calculating, and posting all those numbers and details like I see so many others do. I'm here to point out what I perceive as problems, and post ideas for solutions to said problems.

I'll leave the math and details up to dev, assuming they even liked the idea enough to do anything with in the first place. Which if I remember from Estild correctly, is what dev wants from us as opposed to "I just designed this new spell and here are all of the mechanics and formulas it would use!". Not that I consider that a bad thing for a player to do or anything. I just feel it's not necessary and more often than not, the end result is a lot of time wasted on the player's part.

Plus, despite my complaints about things like lores = roles, I'd like to think that most GMs are typically more creative people than I am, who could take a general idea (i.e. lore specialization benefits) and turn it into something great.


~ Methais

"What would those rewards be, by lore type? Fire - death and destruction? Water - healing and caring? etc. . . I'm mildly interested because while lores aren't the problem - they could be the solution (again?) if positioned well. Or, they may not. <shrug>

And. . . -Doug"

I think what was asked for was that each lore have all three things available to it. Offensive, Defensive, and Utility. Most spells should go the multiple element way whenever possible to assist this type of lore implementation. So a spell like Elemental Bias would have different bonuses for all elements and we would chose which we would be able to cast by the lores we learned much like 520.

GBB

>But, if the difference between Fire offensive and Water offensive is 'red' and 'blue' then I'm not happy with the suggestion. That is the blending of benefits so each lore gets all that I was referring to. The benefit to specialization has no mechanical diversity - and as such in my view ceases to be a benefits discussion and becomes more a clothing discussion.

In my view, specialization for elemental lores should not result in mechanical diversity but in flavor diversity. Simply because somehow they tied attunement to lores which are separately tied to function. This makes little sense to me as in my view, someone who chooses to RP as a water mage should not be offensively gimped just because they choose to master a different element. They should be able to achieve the same level of offensive power, but in different ways.

This is actually how the other lores work, if you weren't aware. All three spiritual lores offer offensive, defensive, and utility benefits in different degrees, but none is boxed into one sole function. Same with sorcerous lores to a lesser degree.