With the advent of 'aura'-type spells (see Paladin's 1609/1617/1618), I wonder if there's a chance of making 307 some sort of aura spell?
My idea:
307 - Holy Aura
Has three options. Regular CAST equals what the spell currently is, some AS and DS. INVOKE equals an all-AS (make the DS into AS), EVOKE equals all-DS (make the AS into DS). This would give clerics a way to boost both or either, depending on the situation they find themselves in. Perhaps also increase the amount of base AS/DS from 5 to 10, and leave the increasing bonuses the same; or add in things like bolt DS & TD for the EVOKE/DS version, and (group) bolt AS & possible CS for the INVOKE/AS version.
What say you, clerics of Elanthia?
(I also understand that there's no other current/future-known cleric auras, so making this a proper 'aura' spell may be redundant, currently.)
~Cylnthia Kythnis Ardenai
~Inquisitor of Kuon
~Rose Guardian, House Sylvanfair
CLTIDBALL
WINTERDAWN
LEAFIARA
Re: Idea - 307: Holy Aura
03/20/2021 04:27 AM CDT
Short answer: Yes, please do this for now.
Long answer: stay tuned for the afternoon. :P Thoughts about the deity system, auras, individual spell modes, litmus tests for intraprofession diversity, harmonizing roleplay and mechanics, and more are swirling around in my head and I need some time and sleep to articulate.
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara_(prime)
Long answer: stay tuned for the afternoon. :P Thoughts about the deity system, auras, individual spell modes, litmus tests for intraprofession diversity, harmonizing roleplay and mechanics, and more are swirling around in my head and I need some time and sleep to articulate.
https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara_(prime)
LEAFIARA
Re: Idea - 307: Holy Aura
04/17/2021 04:51 PM CDT
Took me a month to get back to this, but let's have at it. Bear with me, heh. :P
One of the most important things to me about any profession is which and how many of its aspects create major, character-defining playstyle distinctions that are supported by design intent.
With rogues, for example, you face meaningful questions of: what weapon skill, specific weapon, what armor type, how heavy to go into stealth, how heavy to go into locksmithing, which combat maneuvers, which shield maneuvers, Kroderine Soul or not, and how heavy to go into spells. That's nine factors off the top of my head and I might still be missing some. This is all without even getting into decisions made during actual combat, too, but just skill selection.
I'd put rogues on the higher end in terms of meaningful questions. Meanwhile, at the bottom are clerics and sorcerers. Clerics' only supported meaningful questions are how heavy to go into Spell Aiming, lore split, and choice of deity. Sorcerers don't care about the choice of deity, but face a more complex lore split.
While these differences exist, they're few enough that I'd argue two characters of the same cleric or sorcerer profession end up looking too similar unless they're going out of their way to deviate from dev intent. In other words, not enough interesting decision-making is offered by design.
Stepping on a tangent, I can't understate how crucial it is that wizards and empaths have supported war pure paths--not only for those who play warmages and warpaths, but even for those who don't. Because the paths work, there's a tangible opportunity cost to not taking them, which lends meaning to that choice not to take them. It's the same as how shield maneuvers pose a good question that warriors must face even if they ultimately decide on TWC, THWs, or polearms.
Obviously I know there are war clerics (myself included) and at least one war sorc running around, but there comes a point where we're basically bucking the system and rejecting the parameters of the game to create custom professions. There could be someone out there leveling a warrior only on locksmithing, but there too I'd say that's a question more posed by players rather than dev design intent.
Let me cut the tangent there to not lose my main point, which is about decision-making and opportunity cost.
So, circling back to the OP...
I like the 307 idea because it would be a decent building block to establish a difference between two archetypes: an offensive cleric and a defensive cleric. (Repeating the phrase "building block" since obviously it's not on the character-defining level of a lore split, but anything is better than nothing for portraying a character.)
Similar reasoning is why I keep asking for an alternate 319 evoke that sacrifices defense for offense, because that's what would fit my character (and no doubt others). Similar reasoning is also why I love 520. It offers so much to work with RP-wise for explaining why your element is what it is, and how it fits your characters.
Establishing characters through harmony of mechanics and RP seems to be getting a renewed push lately in general, which is a great thing and one I intend to explore in a mentor event in the future. I can't wait for warriors' armor proficiency to open up character portrayals that wouldn't have been nearly as viable before.
In the long run, I do want to see Viduus achieve the long-term goal he's expressed before of improving the deity experience for clerics and paladins alike. But even in the absence of that, or in tandem with it, more individual spells with mutually exclusive modes would help--like 520, like 650, or like the 307 idea here. More auras would help. Archetypes, hopefully, will help.
That's the direction I'd like to see. Yes, there are infinite ways to roleplay and finite ways to "rollplay." Yes, there can never be a truly perfect fit of character and mechanics. Getting closer is an ideal worth striving for anyway.
One of the most important things to me about any profession is which and how many of its aspects create major, character-defining playstyle distinctions that are supported by design intent.
With rogues, for example, you face meaningful questions of: what weapon skill, specific weapon, what armor type, how heavy to go into stealth, how heavy to go into locksmithing, which combat maneuvers, which shield maneuvers, Kroderine Soul or not, and how heavy to go into spells. That's nine factors off the top of my head and I might still be missing some. This is all without even getting into decisions made during actual combat, too, but just skill selection.
I'd put rogues on the higher end in terms of meaningful questions. Meanwhile, at the bottom are clerics and sorcerers. Clerics' only supported meaningful questions are how heavy to go into Spell Aiming, lore split, and choice of deity. Sorcerers don't care about the choice of deity, but face a more complex lore split.
While these differences exist, they're few enough that I'd argue two characters of the same cleric or sorcerer profession end up looking too similar unless they're going out of their way to deviate from dev intent. In other words, not enough interesting decision-making is offered by design.
Stepping on a tangent, I can't understate how crucial it is that wizards and empaths have supported war pure paths--not only for those who play warmages and warpaths, but even for those who don't. Because the paths work, there's a tangible opportunity cost to not taking them, which lends meaning to that choice not to take them. It's the same as how shield maneuvers pose a good question that warriors must face even if they ultimately decide on TWC, THWs, or polearms.
Obviously I know there are war clerics (myself included) and at least one war sorc running around, but there comes a point where we're basically bucking the system and rejecting the parameters of the game to create custom professions. There could be someone out there leveling a warrior only on locksmithing, but there too I'd say that's a question more posed by players rather than dev design intent.
Let me cut the tangent there to not lose my main point, which is about decision-making and opportunity cost.
So, circling back to the OP...
I like the 307 idea because it would be a decent building block to establish a difference between two archetypes: an offensive cleric and a defensive cleric. (Repeating the phrase "building block" since obviously it's not on the character-defining level of a lore split, but anything is better than nothing for portraying a character.)
Similar reasoning is why I keep asking for an alternate 319 evoke that sacrifices defense for offense, because that's what would fit my character (and no doubt others). Similar reasoning is also why I love 520. It offers so much to work with RP-wise for explaining why your element is what it is, and how it fits your characters.
Establishing characters through harmony of mechanics and RP seems to be getting a renewed push lately in general, which is a great thing and one I intend to explore in a mentor event in the future. I can't wait for warriors' armor proficiency to open up character portrayals that wouldn't have been nearly as viable before.
In the long run, I do want to see Viduus achieve the long-term goal he's expressed before of improving the deity experience for clerics and paladins alike. But even in the absence of that, or in tandem with it, more individual spells with mutually exclusive modes would help--like 520, like 650, or like the 307 idea here. More auras would help. Archetypes, hopefully, will help.
That's the direction I'd like to see. Yes, there are infinite ways to roleplay and finite ways to "rollplay." Yes, there can never be a truly perfect fit of character and mechanics. Getting closer is an ideal worth striving for anyway.
KANDOR
Re: Idea - 307: Holy Aura
04/18/2021 11:24 AM CDT
>Stepping on a tangent, I can't understate how crucial it is that wizards and empaths have supported war pure paths--not only for those who play warmages and warpaths, but even for those who don't. Because the paths work, there's a tangible opportunity cost to not taking them, which lends meaning to that choice not to take them.
Yes. Having meaningful, viable training options allows us to align the game mechanics of a character with a role we want to play, rather than vice-versa. These options improve the character's longevity and they improve the game's replay value. Cookie-cutter professions that are tight on training points lack some of these, but they may have other advantages, and might offer a simpler play-style, easier hunting, etc. Ascension changes this somewhat by allowing all professions to open "mutant" paths, though it may take a long time to accomplish.
>Obviously I know there are war clerics (myself included) and at least one war sorc running around, but there comes a point where we're basically bucking the system and rejecting the parameters of the game to create custom professions. There could be someone out there leveling a warrior only on locksmithing, but there too I'd say that's a question more posed by players rather than dev design intent.
The old RM-style skills are trainable by others, but at a cost. The magic costs for warriors were originally a good example of this. They weren't intended to be feasible within the parameters of the game at their max level, but the option was there. Granted, the options RM permitted went a little overboard. Locksmithing costs for non-rogues should be increased a bit.
The last 20 years or so of dev here have generally been the opposite -- adding hard constraints to create more diffentiation between the professions. I feel this weakens the game more than it helps it. One profession can be made better than another at something without the hard constraint. Again, one might argue that Ascension is the softening of the constraints. It doesn't address all of them, but it has great potential. And, though we can certainly create a character that might be an ineffective hunter, I praise the game for allowing this.
Yes. Having meaningful, viable training options allows us to align the game mechanics of a character with a role we want to play, rather than vice-versa. These options improve the character's longevity and they improve the game's replay value. Cookie-cutter professions that are tight on training points lack some of these, but they may have other advantages, and might offer a simpler play-style, easier hunting, etc. Ascension changes this somewhat by allowing all professions to open "mutant" paths, though it may take a long time to accomplish.
>Obviously I know there are war clerics (myself included) and at least one war sorc running around, but there comes a point where we're basically bucking the system and rejecting the parameters of the game to create custom professions. There could be someone out there leveling a warrior only on locksmithing, but there too I'd say that's a question more posed by players rather than dev design intent.
The old RM-style skills are trainable by others, but at a cost. The magic costs for warriors were originally a good example of this. They weren't intended to be feasible within the parameters of the game at their max level, but the option was there. Granted, the options RM permitted went a little overboard. Locksmithing costs for non-rogues should be increased a bit.
The last 20 years or so of dev here have generally been the opposite -- adding hard constraints to create more diffentiation between the professions. I feel this weakens the game more than it helps it. One profession can be made better than another at something without the hard constraint. Again, one might argue that Ascension is the softening of the constraints. It doesn't address all of them, but it has great potential. And, though we can certainly create a character that might be an ineffective hunter, I praise the game for allowing this.
