I'd like to make sure that the spells rated as "easier" still teach - I know the GMs are trying to stop people from casting ES and the like to learn from zero to 1750, but it really should be kept in mind that some "intro" and even "basic" spells might have a niche for particular guilds depending on what - and where - they are fighting.
Speaking strictly about character vs critter combat here, if my necromancer or bard go fight a critter that inhabits a justice area, even though USOL, BLB, or in the case of the Bard, Pyre, might be the more appropriate spell for that creature, at that particular combat level, I would still like to be able to learn from STRA, BURDEN or BOS and still be able to learn from those spells in those locations. Or be able to learn from buffing myself with MAF and Ease rather than CH.
<<If I can't cast thunderclap, you can't summon the dark lord of the abyss to devour the flesh of the innocent>>
GERSTEINJ2
ASHAMAN1
Re: Easy vs Hard spells - a Learning concern for 3.1
01/30/2014 09:47 AM CST
That would be what Research is for.
GERSTEINJ2
Re: Easy vs Hard spells - a Learning concern for 3.1
01/30/2014 10:48 AM CST
<<That would be what Research is for. >>
hmm, I haven't seen any gm posts saying a research feat would be to cast illegal spells without penalty in justice areas.
my concern is hunting celepeze with STRA and still learning TM. <necro> I know I can use and learn from them with USOL. <from Test>. In the live game, I won't cast that in a justice area.
or hunting with my wm or bard and using lower tier spells than fire rain or pyre, which are both illegal, and still learning.
<<If I can't cast thunderclap, you can't summon the dark lord of the abyss to devour the flesh of the innocent>>
hmm, I haven't seen any gm posts saying a research feat would be to cast illegal spells without penalty in justice areas.
my concern is hunting celepeze with STRA and still learning TM. <necro> I know I can use and learn from them with USOL. <from Test>. In the live game, I won't cast that in a justice area.
or hunting with my wm or bard and using lower tier spells than fire rain or pyre, which are both illegal, and still learning.
<<If I can't cast thunderclap, you can't summon the dark lord of the abyss to devour the flesh of the innocent>>
GNIKOLEYCHUK
Re: Easy vs Hard spells - a Learning concern for 3.1
01/30/2014 10:55 AM CST
>>> hmm, I haven't seen any gm posts saying a research feat would be to cast illegal spells without penalty in justice areas.
He was referring to magic research rather than necro research.
It is basically a new system that will allow you to start a project that over 5-15 minutes (or something like that) will lock one or more magic skills without casting a spell. Presumably this will allow you to learn without gaining DO or making sure you have the optimal spell choices for learning at your skill level.
He was referring to magic research rather than necro research.
It is basically a new system that will allow you to start a project that over 5-15 minutes (or something like that) will lock one or more magic skills without casting a spell. Presumably this will allow you to learn without gaining DO or making sure you have the optimal spell choices for learning at your skill level.
LAMBL
Re: Easy vs Hard spells - a Learning concern for 3.1
01/30/2014 11:08 AM CST
<<my concern is hunting celepeze with STRA and still learning TM.>>
My understanding is that the spell difficulty stuff doesn't apply (much) to TM or Debilitation. For those, you need a challenging opponent rather than a challenging spell. So STRA should teach you just fine.
Thanks,
-Life Sustainer Karthor
My understanding is that the spell difficulty stuff doesn't apply (much) to TM or Debilitation. For those, you need a challenging opponent rather than a challenging spell. So STRA should teach you just fine.
Thanks,
-Life Sustainer Karthor
ASHAMAN1
Re: Easy vs Hard spells - a Learning concern for 3.1
01/30/2014 12:14 PM CST
Karthor is quite correct. And I was referring to spell research for learning via non-esoterics in the upper ranks. The idea of basic (non-TM) teaching to max ranks however is silly at best. Rather defeats the point of having both ranks and difficulty of spells.
Samsaren
Samsaren
TEVESHSZAT
Re: Easy vs Hard spells - a Learning concern for 3.1
01/30/2014 12:39 PM CST
>>My understanding is that the spell difficulty stuff doesn't apply (much) to TM or Debilitation. For those, you need a challenging opponent rather than a challenging spell. So STRA should teach you just fine.
This is correct. I rarely bother trying to put much mana into my TM or debilitation since the difficulty of hitting at-level things provides more than enough experience.
>>The idea of basic (non-TM) teaching to max ranks however is silly at best. Rather defeats the point of having both ranks and difficulty of spells.
I'd rather see a notable advantage to using harder spells vs easier spells just not working.
IMO I'd like to see spell difficulty and general spell caps tied together. So you get more bang out of your buck per mana used in a spell, but those spells are also notably harder to add mana into than basic spells.
So if Esoteric spell X is currently 10 min/100 max, and you can currently cast at-level at 60, I'd rather see it as 10 min/40 max and you can currently cast at ~25 (or whatever).
This helps define how the tiers work beyond just "we want this spell to be harder". By making basic spells mana inefficient, it helps paint them as crude/simplistic, while esoteric spells are a heavily refined and, as a result, function much more effectively without expending as much magical stamina, despite it being a lot harder to process it.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
This is correct. I rarely bother trying to put much mana into my TM or debilitation since the difficulty of hitting at-level things provides more than enough experience.
>>The idea of basic (non-TM) teaching to max ranks however is silly at best. Rather defeats the point of having both ranks and difficulty of spells.
I'd rather see a notable advantage to using harder spells vs easier spells just not working.
IMO I'd like to see spell difficulty and general spell caps tied together. So you get more bang out of your buck per mana used in a spell, but those spells are also notably harder to add mana into than basic spells.
So if Esoteric spell X is currently 10 min/100 max, and you can currently cast at-level at 60, I'd rather see it as 10 min/40 max and you can currently cast at ~25 (or whatever).
This helps define how the tiers work beyond just "we want this spell to be harder". By making basic spells mana inefficient, it helps paint them as crude/simplistic, while esoteric spells are a heavily refined and, as a result, function much more effectively without expending as much magical stamina, despite it being a lot harder to process it.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
DR-SOCHARIS
Re: Easy vs Hard spells - a Learning concern for 3.1
01/30/2014 03:48 PM CST
>>By making basic spells mana inefficient, it helps paint them as crude/simplistic, while esoteric spells are a heavily refined and, as a result, function much more effectively without expending as much magical stamina, despite it being a lot harder to process it
This doesn't balance, unfortunately. It's an interesting fictional concept, but it essentially makes the entire concept of mana meaningless.
If the crappy, easy spells are mana-inefficient, then new magic users won't be able to cast very frequently. As they get better, they'll be able to cast the better spells more frequently, which totally makes sense from a story point of view but is fundamentally unusable from a game balance perspective.
Besides, I think there's a more interesting magical theory in the idea that mana costs increase with the complexity (ergo difficulty) of the spell. Your Ease Burdens are pretty simple executions of magical finesse, while your IotS requires a lot more mana (and thus skill) to pull off.
--
"The ninety and nine are with dreams, content but the hope of the world made new, is the hundredth man who is grimly bent on making those dreams come true." -E.A.P.
This doesn't balance, unfortunately. It's an interesting fictional concept, but it essentially makes the entire concept of mana meaningless.
If the crappy, easy spells are mana-inefficient, then new magic users won't be able to cast very frequently. As they get better, they'll be able to cast the better spells more frequently, which totally makes sense from a story point of view but is fundamentally unusable from a game balance perspective.
Besides, I think there's a more interesting magical theory in the idea that mana costs increase with the complexity (ergo difficulty) of the spell. Your Ease Burdens are pretty simple executions of magical finesse, while your IotS requires a lot more mana (and thus skill) to pull off.
--
"The ninety and nine are with dreams, content but the hope of the world made new, is the hundredth man who is grimly bent on making those dreams come true." -E.A.P.
TEVESHSZAT
Re: Easy vs Hard spells - a Learning concern for 3.1
01/30/2014 10:58 PM CST
>>If the crappy, easy spells are mana-inefficient, then new magic users won't be able to cast very frequently.
I would imagine that easier spells would work like they do now. I don't think anyone lower level is struggling to cast spells at their personal cap (right?).
I guess part of what I'm having issue with when it comes to magic twofold:
1) Probably more obvious for Necromancers than other guilds, but I lack access to esoteric spells I can cast over and over (since most higher ones for Necros cause Divine Outrage, which means you can't just spam cast them for training purposes). I figure other guilds might have a similar situation, but more because they might not have an advanced/esoteric X for one particular magic type just due to not having one.
2) At least for non-Moon Mages, it feels like the amount of extra energy you can perceive essentially plateaus at a certain point. At least I feel like I've been having my "good" spots wavering between fulgent and brilliant for a couple hundred ranks now (currently at low 800s Attunement). At lower levels, I'd have my room energy steadily increase at a similar rate to how much higher I could cast, but now I'm having to cast higher and higher to train (and more and more often to lock) but the room energy isn't increasing at a similar rate. So I feel like I'll inevitably be in situations where I'm capping out esoteric spells to train yet my good spots just aren't as scaled up.
>>Besides, I think there's a more interesting magical theory in the idea that mana costs increase with the complexity (ergo difficulty) of the spell. Your Ease Burdens are pretty simple executions of magical finesse, while your IotS requires a lot more mana (and thus skill) to pull off.
True.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
I would imagine that easier spells would work like they do now. I don't think anyone lower level is struggling to cast spells at their personal cap (right?).
I guess part of what I'm having issue with when it comes to magic twofold:
1) Probably more obvious for Necromancers than other guilds, but I lack access to esoteric spells I can cast over and over (since most higher ones for Necros cause Divine Outrage, which means you can't just spam cast them for training purposes). I figure other guilds might have a similar situation, but more because they might not have an advanced/esoteric X for one particular magic type just due to not having one.
2) At least for non-Moon Mages, it feels like the amount of extra energy you can perceive essentially plateaus at a certain point. At least I feel like I've been having my "good" spots wavering between fulgent and brilliant for a couple hundred ranks now (currently at low 800s Attunement). At lower levels, I'd have my room energy steadily increase at a similar rate to how much higher I could cast, but now I'm having to cast higher and higher to train (and more and more often to lock) but the room energy isn't increasing at a similar rate. So I feel like I'll inevitably be in situations where I'm capping out esoteric spells to train yet my good spots just aren't as scaled up.
>>Besides, I think there's a more interesting magical theory in the idea that mana costs increase with the complexity (ergo difficulty) of the spell. Your Ease Burdens are pretty simple executions of magical finesse, while your IotS requires a lot more mana (and thus skill) to pull off.
True.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
DR-SOCHARIS
Re: Easy vs Hard spells - a Learning concern for 3.1
01/31/2014 03:47 PM CST
Symbioses will help this out a lot. Being able to tack on some buffs to a spell to make it harder will significantly increase the difficulty per mana point, allowing you to scale lower-level spells up in difficulty for training.
--
"The ninety and nine are with dreams, content but the hope of the world made new, is the hundredth man who is grimly bent on making those dreams come true." -E.A.P.
--
"The ninety and nine are with dreams, content but the hope of the world made new, is the hundredth man who is grimly bent on making those dreams come true." -E.A.P.
