Previous
So, recently I managed to get a staff enchanted with a glow rod enchantment completely through the enchanting system. It is by no means complete, but the core is done and now I'm finishing messaging, adding a bunch of QoL improvements and deciding what the actual enchantments will be and how they will scale.
Artificing kind of sprung up from the need for a blacksmithing analogue. A Discipline dealing with the physical, tool-like workhorse and utility enchantments. However, I've been going back and forth over what exactly it should contain and what should be included with Invoking and Binding (assuming we don't change their names too...)
Currently, I'd like to see the following for Artificing:
* Mana Founts, Burins, Braziers (enchanting tools)
* Ritual Foci, TM Foci, Sorcery Foci maybe
* Runestones
* Wands, Rods, Staves
* Fluff items like rings, amulets, clothing and floaty gems
* Small enchanted worn "pets"
* Room-affecting minor consumable artifacts like nemoih stones and cantrip-potency things
* Maybe? Scroll scribing for a limited set of spells and possibly a set of enchanting-only available AP spells?
Now one Staff suggestion was to make Binding change to Weapon Enchanting and Invoking change to Armor Enchanting. I worry that would spread things too thin and they may want to be kept together. What are your thoughts? What other path might we take? What other ideas do you have for Artificing?
Thanks!
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
DR-KODIUS
GNIKOLEYCHUK
Re: Decisions
04/19/2014 02:37 PM CDT
>>>> Now one Staff suggestion was to make Binding change to Weapon Enchanting and Invoking change to Armor Enchanting.
You mentioned this before and I didn't like it because it really made enchanting into a forging analogue and focused to much on combat enchantments, in my opinion. I was/am planning to put all of my hobbies and careers into enchanting but this sort of reduced my interest in doing so dramatically because I found the system to have much less potential interest.
>>>> What other path might we take?
Why not try:
Artificing: As above mostly, it seems to be pretty broad as it is. I think this should focus on permanent items and those with multiple charges.
Binding: weapon and armour enchanting with separate pathways for each.
Invoking: Enchantments that are one use and have a group, room based effect. Sort of like the old devourer and unbend enchantments. Maybe add scroll scribing here. I was hoping for a much expanded scroll scribing that you were proposing. Maybe if you make another scroll a component it would allow me to change my PV scroll that I will never use into something I will.
You mentioned this before and I didn't like it because it really made enchanting into a forging analogue and focused to much on combat enchantments, in my opinion. I was/am planning to put all of my hobbies and careers into enchanting but this sort of reduced my interest in doing so dramatically because I found the system to have much less potential interest.
>>>> What other path might we take?
Why not try:
Artificing: As above mostly, it seems to be pretty broad as it is. I think this should focus on permanent items and those with multiple charges.
Binding: weapon and armour enchanting with separate pathways for each.
Invoking: Enchantments that are one use and have a group, room based effect. Sort of like the old devourer and unbend enchantments. Maybe add scroll scribing here. I was hoping for a much expanded scroll scribing that you were proposing. Maybe if you make another scroll a component it would allow me to change my PV scroll that I will never use into something I will.
DR-KODIUS
Re: Decisions
04/19/2014 03:19 PM CDT
>>Invoking: Enchantments that are one use and have a group, room based effect. Sort of like the old devourer and unbend enchantments.
Group Buffs won't be very helpful as most Guilds can already get 90% of the buffs available in the game by circle 100. They will be even less useful once we figure out how to add a buff cap to players. So, I am not seeing how an entire enchanting Discipline grows from this limited area. Group-buff items can also become very pervasive and difficult to balance in the long-run.
Devourers, light sources, minor mana manipulators - those are smaller effects and not disruptive to game balance. Unbend is a bit more powerful, but that particular one could be extremely hard to make.
I'm really looking for new options to explore beyond "Buff" "Debuff" "+500 damage" "+500 Protection".
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Group Buffs won't be very helpful as most Guilds can already get 90% of the buffs available in the game by circle 100. They will be even less useful once we figure out how to add a buff cap to players. So, I am not seeing how an entire enchanting Discipline grows from this limited area. Group-buff items can also become very pervasive and difficult to balance in the long-run.
Devourers, light sources, minor mana manipulators - those are smaller effects and not disruptive to game balance. Unbend is a bit more powerful, but that particular one could be extremely hard to make.
I'm really looking for new options to explore beyond "Buff" "Debuff" "+500 damage" "+500 Protection".
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
SCHULTZS3
Re: Decisions
04/19/2014 05:41 PM CDT
I too do not like the Weapon-Armor-Blacksmithing analogue.
Why not have Artificing make the PHYSICAL objects and enchanting the tools used for crafting? (analogous to ingot smelting and Blacksmithing making tools for crafters of all other disciplines)
Its big thing is it makes the necessary tools and the unfinished goods used by the other two. For Binding it would make blank scrolls and runestones, unpowered wands, rods, staves. For Armor/Weapon Enchanting, it prepares raw material that gets eaten by the enchanting process akin to Alchemy catalysts. Like taking a volume of orichalcum or a gemstone and VERBing it into something like a powder or specially shaped object that gets sucked into the enchantment.
That should be more than enough to make an entire Discipline tech tree and designs.
Binding focuses on scribing self-contained complete patterns that are finished in and of themselves and are "reinforced" (The crafter goes over it again and again to make it "set"). Consumable tricks and toys here. The pattern is a very strong effectively permanent one, but the material gives out and breaks, crumples, explodes, disintegrates, etc. before the pattern fades from channeling mana through it. These are more often direct spell effects.
Spell-charged Runestones, Wands, Rods, Staves, consumable foci, "consumable nemoih stone artifacts", spell scrolls, pretty much anything that is consumable.
Invoking, on the other hand, are less permanent enchantments on permanent things, the item does not break, but the enchantment wears out and needs renewing because it is not set as hard as Binding.
Armor/Weapon Enchanting is big here, and permanent foci are here. Enchanted worn "pets" (I can has clockwork spider? for my characters that I made after THAT HE Fest?) would be Invoked and the pattern needs renewing. Cambrinth carving?
The end result of some things could be in both Binding and Invoking, either way, you're going to have to re-enchant.
Kaeta Airtag
"I have faith in the current crop of GMs to not screw people over"
>>Actually an opinion cannot be changed or corrected. Nice try back of line.-VERATHOR
>>But it can be wrong.-Starlear
Why not have Artificing make the PHYSICAL objects and enchanting the tools used for crafting? (analogous to ingot smelting and Blacksmithing making tools for crafters of all other disciplines)
Its big thing is it makes the necessary tools and the unfinished goods used by the other two. For Binding it would make blank scrolls and runestones, unpowered wands, rods, staves. For Armor/Weapon Enchanting, it prepares raw material that gets eaten by the enchanting process akin to Alchemy catalysts. Like taking a volume of orichalcum or a gemstone and VERBing it into something like a powder or specially shaped object that gets sucked into the enchantment.
That should be more than enough to make an entire Discipline tech tree and designs.
Binding focuses on scribing self-contained complete patterns that are finished in and of themselves and are "reinforced" (The crafter goes over it again and again to make it "set"). Consumable tricks and toys here. The pattern is a very strong effectively permanent one, but the material gives out and breaks, crumples, explodes, disintegrates, etc. before the pattern fades from channeling mana through it. These are more often direct spell effects.
Spell-charged Runestones, Wands, Rods, Staves, consumable foci, "consumable nemoih stone artifacts", spell scrolls, pretty much anything that is consumable.
Invoking, on the other hand, are less permanent enchantments on permanent things, the item does not break, but the enchantment wears out and needs renewing because it is not set as hard as Binding.
Armor/Weapon Enchanting is big here, and permanent foci are here. Enchanted worn "pets" (I can has clockwork spider? for my characters that I made after THAT HE Fest?) would be Invoked and the pattern needs renewing. Cambrinth carving?
The end result of some things could be in both Binding and Invoking, either way, you're going to have to re-enchant.
Kaeta Airtag
"I have faith in the current crop of GMs to not screw people over"
>>Actually an opinion cannot be changed or corrected. Nice try back of line.-VERATHOR
>>But it can be wrong.-Starlear
GNIKOLEYCHUK
Re: Decisions
04/19/2014 06:27 PM CDT
>>>> Binding focuses on scribing self-contained complete patterns that are finished in and of themselves and are "reinforced"
>>>> Invoking, on the other hand, are less permanent enchantments on permanent things, the item does not break, but the enchantment wears out
I think this is sort of the idea I was trying to get across with the exception that I was thinking of artificing as filling the role of your binding and having binding be more of an weapon / armour enchanting discipline.
MOCKERJB
Re: Decisions
04/19/2014 06:32 PM CDT
Exciting, I'm looking forward to this system. Artificing sounds slick.
I think it would be good to split armor enchanting and weapon enchanting into two disciplines because I think that will increase the likelihood of some diversity among people focusing on one or the other. I don't care at all that the split makes enchanting similar to forging in that regard; forging is done well. Why go in a different direction just to say it's different? I do think that the names should remain something broader than weapon enchanting and armor enchanting though; that provides room to expand those disciplines into other products as ideas are developed.
I think it would be good to split armor enchanting and weapon enchanting into two disciplines because I think that will increase the likelihood of some diversity among people focusing on one or the other. I don't care at all that the split makes enchanting similar to forging in that regard; forging is done well. Why go in a different direction just to say it's different? I do think that the names should remain something broader than weapon enchanting and armor enchanting though; that provides room to expand those disciplines into other products as ideas are developed.
MOCKERJB
Re: Decisions
04/19/2014 06:38 PM CDT
Sorry for the double-post, but saw Kaeta's after I posted.
<<Its big thing is it makes the necessary tools and the unfinished goods used by the other two. For Binding it would make blank scrolls and runestones, unpowered wands, rods, staves. For Armor/Weapon Enchanting, it prepares raw material that gets eaten by the enchanting process akin to Alchemy catalysts. Like taking a volume of orichalcum or a gemstone and VERBing it into something like a powder or specially shaped object that gets sucked into the enchantment.>>
I like that approach too.
<<Its big thing is it makes the necessary tools and the unfinished goods used by the other two. For Binding it would make blank scrolls and runestones, unpowered wands, rods, staves. For Armor/Weapon Enchanting, it prepares raw material that gets eaten by the enchanting process akin to Alchemy catalysts. Like taking a volume of orichalcum or a gemstone and VERBing it into something like a powder or specially shaped object that gets sucked into the enchantment.>>
I like that approach too.
TEVESHSZAT
Re: Decisions
04/19/2014 06:42 PM CDT
I'd like to see:
1) Artificing: Material prep and fun/niche things. Think sigil rings, flying brooms, animated "pets", lightbulb enchantment, those verby magic gauntlets, etc.
2) Binding: Things you activate that have continual effects (or pulsing effects). Flaming weapons, something that can go on a weapon and damage the integrity of whatever is on what it hits, something that can block spells every X minutes, etc.
3) Invoking: Things you activate that are one-shots or timed charges. Skill buffs, runestones, those wind enchantments that blow targets away, etc.
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.
1) Artificing: Material prep and fun/niche things. Think sigil rings, flying brooms, animated "pets", lightbulb enchantment, those verby magic gauntlets, etc.
2) Binding: Things you activate that have continual effects (or pulsing effects). Flaming weapons, something that can go on a weapon and damage the integrity of whatever is on what it hits, something that can block spells every X minutes, etc.
3) Invoking: Things you activate that are one-shots or timed charges. Skill buffs, runestones, those wind enchantments that blow targets away, etc.
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.
ROBERTDH
Re: Decisions
04/19/2014 06:45 PM CDT
I kind of like this consumable/rechargeable idea.
I don't think splitting weapon and armor enchanting sounds like it would produce two full trees. How much depth are we expecting in combat enchantments? Historically we have few things to compare in Dragonrealms.
>Forgive my snark, but welcome to the life of a warrior mage.
I don't think splitting weapon and armor enchanting sounds like it would produce two full trees. How much depth are we expecting in combat enchantments? Historically we have few things to compare in Dragonrealms.
>Forgive my snark, but welcome to the life of a warrior mage.
DR-KODIUS
Re: Decisions
04/19/2014 06:53 PM CDT
>>it prepares raw material that gets eaten by the enchanting process akin to Alchemy catalysts. Like taking a volume of orichalcum or a gemstone and VERBing it into something like a powder or specially shaped object that gets sucked into the enchantment.
Interesting idea, but not where we decided to take Enchanting. The Enchanting ingredients are Sigils, Founts and the base item which usually comes from another crafting system. The material the item-to-be-enchanted is made out of determines how suitable it is for enchanting. Adding yet another (dust) ingredient would make it unnecessarily complicated in my opinion. These items would have to span from Tier 1-12, and that would annoy people greatly to need a Tier 12 ingredient for their enchantment - something they cannot buy in the store like EVERY OTHER crafting system :P
Ingot-making is only a tiny portion (Tiers 1-3) of Blacksmithing, a portion many people decide not to specialize in. So too will be Sigil harvesting. You can technically be better at it if you are an Artificer but it is not required.
Permanent vs non permanent - that will be decided by the Fount being used. It is not currently tied to the Discipline, and doing so would break the overarching design we have going on. The current design gives the base material a "capacity". Each enchantment has a "size", and the Fount is a modifier to this size.
Steel - Small enchantment with uses/day, medium with a cooldown, large with a chance to break on use.
Niniam - Small permanent, medium charge to use, large with limited charges, huge with chance to break on use.
Orichalcum - Small permanent, medium uses/day, large with a cooldown, huge with a timed allowed use
Enchantable materials like Niniam and Orichalcum will not work properly if present in less than 33% of the mix, and some materials will have unique bonus properties (for example, adding a hair of kertig might add bonus size for fire enchantments. Too much though reduces the capacity). This makes mixology more important than the basic %s people use today.
Artificing will also have enchanting repair, but that is again not enough to support the entire Discipline. Artificing needs finished items to support Work Orders to Tier 12. Founts, Repairing and Sigil harvesting do not get us there.
I hope that explains the overall design more, and why it is challenging to find a good way to split up the remaining 2 disciplines.
One other option might be for Binding to be internal enchantments and Invoking to be external enchantments.
For example:
Fire Binding Weapon Enchantment:
Add fire damage to the sword.
Fire Invoking Weapon Enchantment:
Allow sword to hurl fireshard/fireball when waved in combat.
Fire Binding Armor Enchantment:
Increased Fire Protection on-hit Proc.
Fire Invoking Armor Enchantment:
Chance to burn the attacker when they hit you.
Any thoughts on that approach?
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Interesting idea, but not where we decided to take Enchanting. The Enchanting ingredients are Sigils, Founts and the base item which usually comes from another crafting system. The material the item-to-be-enchanted is made out of determines how suitable it is for enchanting. Adding yet another (dust) ingredient would make it unnecessarily complicated in my opinion. These items would have to span from Tier 1-12, and that would annoy people greatly to need a Tier 12 ingredient for their enchantment - something they cannot buy in the store like EVERY OTHER crafting system :P
Ingot-making is only a tiny portion (Tiers 1-3) of Blacksmithing, a portion many people decide not to specialize in. So too will be Sigil harvesting. You can technically be better at it if you are an Artificer but it is not required.
Permanent vs non permanent - that will be decided by the Fount being used. It is not currently tied to the Discipline, and doing so would break the overarching design we have going on. The current design gives the base material a "capacity". Each enchantment has a "size", and the Fount is a modifier to this size.
Steel - Small enchantment with uses/day, medium with a cooldown, large with a chance to break on use.
Niniam - Small permanent, medium charge to use, large with limited charges, huge with chance to break on use.
Orichalcum - Small permanent, medium uses/day, large with a cooldown, huge with a timed allowed use
Enchantable materials like Niniam and Orichalcum will not work properly if present in less than 33% of the mix, and some materials will have unique bonus properties (for example, adding a hair of kertig might add bonus size for fire enchantments. Too much though reduces the capacity). This makes mixology more important than the basic %s people use today.
Artificing will also have enchanting repair, but that is again not enough to support the entire Discipline. Artificing needs finished items to support Work Orders to Tier 12. Founts, Repairing and Sigil harvesting do not get us there.
I hope that explains the overall design more, and why it is challenging to find a good way to split up the remaining 2 disciplines.
One other option might be for Binding to be internal enchantments and Invoking to be external enchantments.
For example:
Fire Binding Weapon Enchantment:
Add fire damage to the sword.
Fire Invoking Weapon Enchantment:
Allow sword to hurl fireshard/fireball when waved in combat.
Fire Binding Armor Enchantment:
Increased Fire Protection on-hit Proc.
Fire Invoking Armor Enchantment:
Chance to burn the attacker when they hit you.
Any thoughts on that approach?
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
SHAMUS13
Re: Decisions
04/19/2014 07:37 PM CDT
I like your ideas for artificing, but i do have a few questions.
It seems to me, that artificing focused around the interaction between matter and mystic energies possibly in a fairly raw form or rudimentary manner ie tools for raw channeling, foci for shaping or augmenting as well as storage of essentially fully formed spell matrices in physical media.
What about cambrinth crafting?
Would gweth crafting belong in another discipline?
I am not sure, i understand the logic behind the so called fluff items belonging in artificing, they seem more of a binding effect.
I think, invoking should focus on devices with well defined magical effects centered on the given device, i do not like the idea of swords shooting fireballs etc. The effect should activated by the user and powered by the device in the form of limited duration effects with a cooldown, item wear etc or by drawing power in some form or other from the user. In terms of your fire sword example, this would be 'hot as hell, when you really need it', but it could also involve temporary transformation of items ala 'foldable castle'.
Binding, i think, should deal with permanently active mystic effects such as bags of holding and effects triggered by conditions such as the user becomming stunned etc. Triggered effects could well draw power from the user or have cooldowns, but the triggering of the effect would not require any action from the user. In terms of your fire sword example, this could be, as you mention, adding a bit of fire damage but also things like 'chance to ignite opponent on a hit'.
In general i do not think, the type item, an enchantment is placed on, is very important or should be made manifest in the form of specific disciplines under enchanting, nor am i at all thrilled at the notion of 'chance to break' magical effects. I can pretty much guarantee never wanting to use such a device.
It seems to me, that artificing focused around the interaction between matter and mystic energies possibly in a fairly raw form or rudimentary manner ie tools for raw channeling, foci for shaping or augmenting as well as storage of essentially fully formed spell matrices in physical media.
What about cambrinth crafting?
Would gweth crafting belong in another discipline?
I am not sure, i understand the logic behind the so called fluff items belonging in artificing, they seem more of a binding effect.
I think, invoking should focus on devices with well defined magical effects centered on the given device, i do not like the idea of swords shooting fireballs etc. The effect should activated by the user and powered by the device in the form of limited duration effects with a cooldown, item wear etc or by drawing power in some form or other from the user. In terms of your fire sword example, this would be 'hot as hell, when you really need it', but it could also involve temporary transformation of items ala 'foldable castle'.
Binding, i think, should deal with permanently active mystic effects such as bags of holding and effects triggered by conditions such as the user becomming stunned etc. Triggered effects could well draw power from the user or have cooldowns, but the triggering of the effect would not require any action from the user. In terms of your fire sword example, this could be, as you mention, adding a bit of fire damage but also things like 'chance to ignite opponent on a hit'.
In general i do not think, the type item, an enchantment is placed on, is very important or should be made manifest in the form of specific disciplines under enchanting, nor am i at all thrilled at the notion of 'chance to break' magical effects. I can pretty much guarantee never wanting to use such a device.
DR-KODIUS
Re: Decisions
04/19/2014 07:45 PM CDT
>>In general i do not think, the type item, an enchantment is placed on, is very important or should be made manifest in the form of specific disciplines under enchanting, nor am i at all thrilled at the notion of 'chance to break' magical effects. I can pretty much guarantee never wanting to use such a device
The underlying item's materials are EXTREMELY important to maintain game balance. We absolutely cannot have the most powerful enchantments residing on capped Tyrium weapons and armor. This is a design decision made over a decade ago - and it makes sense.
For example, Stone and Wood and Bone weapons will all be inherently more enchant-able. This is good. Folks have long complained they are a wasted effort because they lack the damage and capability of their metal counterparts.
Chance to Break is entirely up to you. You might not be thrilled about Pewter Longswords either. But they exist, and some people might find them useful.
If you use a Fount in the enchanting process that applies the "Chance to Break" modifier, you can cram a much larger enchantment onto the item. Alternatively you can use a Fount that applies a "Needs Charging" or a "Has a long cooldown" modifier, and fit a smaller enchantment onto the item. Or use an item made of a more enchant-able material, and use a good Fount AND a larger enchantment.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
The underlying item's materials are EXTREMELY important to maintain game balance. We absolutely cannot have the most powerful enchantments residing on capped Tyrium weapons and armor. This is a design decision made over a decade ago - and it makes sense.
For example, Stone and Wood and Bone weapons will all be inherently more enchant-able. This is good. Folks have long complained they are a wasted effort because they lack the damage and capability of their metal counterparts.
Chance to Break is entirely up to you. You might not be thrilled about Pewter Longswords either. But they exist, and some people might find them useful.
If you use a Fount in the enchanting process that applies the "Chance to Break" modifier, you can cram a much larger enchantment onto the item. Alternatively you can use a Fount that applies a "Needs Charging" or a "Has a long cooldown" modifier, and fit a smaller enchantment onto the item. Or use an item made of a more enchant-able material, and use a good Fount AND a larger enchantment.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
DR-KODIUS
Re: Decisions
04/19/2014 07:47 PM CDT
Oh and I forgot - Cambrinth crafting is an interesting idea. I'll have to talk to others and see what limits we need to apply here.
My initial thought was affixing cambrinth is NOT an enchanting process. It was something more akin to Jewelry craft, or Tinkering. Ditto for Chakrel. But maybe not!
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
My initial thought was affixing cambrinth is NOT an enchanting process. It was something more akin to Jewelry craft, or Tinkering. Ditto for Chakrel. But maybe not!
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
ELWYNN
Re: Decisions
04/19/2014 09:59 PM CDT
I know that everyone will disagree with this, but I don't like enchanting being used to create magic weapons and armor. I like all of the other stuff that enchanting could do.
MOCKERJB
Re: Decisions
04/19/2014 10:02 PM CDT
<<One other option might be for Binding to be internal enchantments and Invoking to be external enchantments.>>
I think that could be an interesting distinction to develop too.
Raw camb preparation could go through artificing but be developed into a final product in jewelry and tinkering (depending on the item).
I think that could be an interesting distinction to develop too.
Raw camb preparation could go through artificing but be developed into a final product in jewelry and tinkering (depending on the item).
SCHULTZS3
Re: Decisions
04/19/2014 10:11 PM CDT
You'll have to forgive my total blanking on how you proposed enchanting. Going back and re-reading your last major post on how you view enchanting (artificing) to work, when I'm thinking of things to add, those would be the equivalent of sigils on a fount.
I do still think, from what you've shown, that you might be throwing too much into Artificing. But you're the GM, and I can't see how you're planning on having the techs/designs arranged.
For example, how do you see making JUST runestones, in terms of designs/techs? 2-3 designs and 1 tech and all the various possibilities come from trial and error, or an entire chapter and 2-3 techs?
I surmise "Founts, Burins, and Braziers" is an entire chapter of Artifice akin to a Blacksmithing chapter?
>Enchantable materials like Niniam and Orichalcum will not work properly if present in less than 33% of the mix
Could just come out and say "We don't like the lack of alloys".
>This makes mixology more important than the basic %s people use today.
The thought of PAFO with unique materials that the GMs wish to restrict even more does not sit well with me.
>My initial thought was affixing cambrinth is NOT an enchanting process. It was something more akin to Jewelry craft, or Tinkering
I was not thinking of the 'affixing' of cambrinth to an item so much as taking a chunk of rock that has some cambrinth ore and pulling it out into a lump and then shaping it into various sizes (of mana).
Kaeta Airtag
"I have faith in the current crop of GMs to not screw people over"
>>Actually an opinion cannot be changed or corrected. Nice try back of line.-VERATHOR
>>But it can be wrong.-Starlear
I do still think, from what you've shown, that you might be throwing too much into Artificing. But you're the GM, and I can't see how you're planning on having the techs/designs arranged.
For example, how do you see making JUST runestones, in terms of designs/techs? 2-3 designs and 1 tech and all the various possibilities come from trial and error, or an entire chapter and 2-3 techs?
I surmise "Founts, Burins, and Braziers" is an entire chapter of Artifice akin to a Blacksmithing chapter?
>Enchantable materials like Niniam and Orichalcum will not work properly if present in less than 33% of the mix
Could just come out and say "We don't like the lack of alloys".
>This makes mixology more important than the basic %s people use today.
The thought of PAFO with unique materials that the GMs wish to restrict even more does not sit well with me.
>My initial thought was affixing cambrinth is NOT an enchanting process. It was something more akin to Jewelry craft, or Tinkering
I was not thinking of the 'affixing' of cambrinth to an item so much as taking a chunk of rock that has some cambrinth ore and pulling it out into a lump and then shaping it into various sizes (of mana).
Kaeta Airtag
"I have faith in the current crop of GMs to not screw people over"
>>Actually an opinion cannot be changed or corrected. Nice try back of line.-VERATHOR
>>But it can be wrong.-Starlear
LIURIDR
Re: Decisions
04/19/2014 10:57 PM CDT
I like the idea of internal/external effects being tied to Binding/Invoking.
GNIKOLEYCHUK
Re: Decisions
04/20/2014 12:32 AM CDT
>>>> Any thoughts on that approach?
I think that idea sounds many times more interesting that creating a forging clone
I think that idea sounds many times more interesting that creating a forging clone
DR-KODIUS
Re: Decisions
04/20/2014 01:01 AM CDT
>>I do still think, from what you've shown, that you might be throwing too much into Artificing. But you're the GM, and I can't see how you're planning on having the techs/designs arranged.
Well, a Discipline requires items from Tier 1-10 before it can be released. Ideally 11 and 12 too, otherwise high level players make death threats against us :P
Blacksmithing has 20-something types of tools each with 3-5 variants. In addition to that, Blacksmithing has 30 or so utility and fluff items. So about 125 things to craft? And it still feels light in some areas.
Artificing will have 8 types of fount tools - but only 1 variant for each. The other tools are the burin, and brazier with maybe 3 or 4 types each. There will be 8 so types of Ritual Foci, a few types of TM foci, and maybe a Sorcery Foci. So right now we have a solid 20 or so things to enchant with Artificing. This is why I feel the need to add more fluff/utility type enchantments to it.
>>Could just come out and say "We don't like the lack of alloys".
I've been screaming, yelling and sounding that trumpet since 2009 or whenever I released Blacksmithing. It was always intended that custom mixes would have more of a use with enchanting. Or, like most things you can just ignore it and be slightly worse off at some things. People CAN forged perfectly good things using storebought tools materials. People CAN make perfectly forged capped items without cutting the steel. But if you want to swap X for Y, you'll have to use 4th grade math.
>>The thought of PAFO with unique materials that the GMs wish to restrict even more does not sit well with me.
You are jumping to incorrect conclusions. There will be no PAFO mystery to it.
>>I was not thinking of the 'affixing' of cambrinth to an item so much as taking a chunk of rock that has some cambrinth ore and pulling it out into a lump and then shaping it into various sizes (of mana).
Shaping and attaching material is a physical process. Enchanting is a process of manipulating mana through the detailed application of magical sigils. There is also IC history/lore of non-MUs (and non-Barbarians) crafting with Cambrinth and Chakrel.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Well, a Discipline requires items from Tier 1-10 before it can be released. Ideally 11 and 12 too, otherwise high level players make death threats against us :P
Blacksmithing has 20-something types of tools each with 3-5 variants. In addition to that, Blacksmithing has 30 or so utility and fluff items. So about 125 things to craft? And it still feels light in some areas.
Artificing will have 8 types of fount tools - but only 1 variant for each. The other tools are the burin, and brazier with maybe 3 or 4 types each. There will be 8 so types of Ritual Foci, a few types of TM foci, and maybe a Sorcery Foci. So right now we have a solid 20 or so things to enchant with Artificing. This is why I feel the need to add more fluff/utility type enchantments to it.
>>Could just come out and say "We don't like the lack of alloys".
I've been screaming, yelling and sounding that trumpet since 2009 or whenever I released Blacksmithing. It was always intended that custom mixes would have more of a use with enchanting. Or, like most things you can just ignore it and be slightly worse off at some things. People CAN forged perfectly good things using storebought tools materials. People CAN make perfectly forged capped items without cutting the steel. But if you want to swap X for Y, you'll have to use 4th grade math.
>>The thought of PAFO with unique materials that the GMs wish to restrict even more does not sit well with me.
You are jumping to incorrect conclusions. There will be no PAFO mystery to it.
>>I was not thinking of the 'affixing' of cambrinth to an item so much as taking a chunk of rock that has some cambrinth ore and pulling it out into a lump and then shaping it into various sizes (of mana).
Shaping and attaching material is a physical process. Enchanting is a process of manipulating mana through the detailed application of magical sigils. There is also IC history/lore of non-MUs (and non-Barbarians) crafting with Cambrinth and Chakrel.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
ROBERTDH
Re: Decisions
04/20/2014 01:45 AM CDT
Aside from armor and weapons, crafting has a dearth of nouns and a surplus of adjectives, resembling randomly-generated loot. Especially with enchanting, unless the lore is that everyone learned enchanting from moon mages, it'd be nice if there were some variety in nouns and everyone wasn't wielding an enchanter's burin... though that probably complicates messaging.
Enchanter's quills, Athames, furniture-sized totem lathes?
Maybe not that last one.
(Please make enchanter's lathes a reality)
>Forgive my snark, but welcome to the life of a warrior mage.
Enchanter's quills, Athames, furniture-sized totem lathes?
Maybe not that last one.
(Please make enchanter's lathes a reality)
>Forgive my snark, but welcome to the life of a warrior mage.
SHAMUS13
Re: Decisions
04/20/2014 01:50 AM CDT
I completely agree, that the materials used to create an item should impact enchanting, my point is, that i do not want the item template to have much impact. I wouldnt want a restriction like; weapon templates can only hold offensive enchantments.
Regarding the 'chance to break' enchantments, it occurred to me, that you might not mean permanently break the item. So how much breakage do you intend?
Regarding the 'chance to break' enchantments, it occurred to me, that you might not mean permanently break the item. So how much breakage do you intend?
DR-KODIUS
Re: Decisions
04/20/2014 02:19 AM CDT
Chance to Break refers to the enchantment. For example, 10% chance for the item to de-enchant when used.
Most enchanted items will have a "durability" metric and will wear out with use. Periodic repair will help them last longer, but not indefinitely. Of course, some enchantments have a built in durability either from charges, or an expiration date. But these do not affect the underlying item.
As for templates, no they will not significantly affect what can be put on the item. A skill boosting enchantment could be placed on a ring or on your sword or shield or helmet.
Global player cooldowns and caps will prevent unloading a ton of sustained skill, stat and other boosters at once for combined effect.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Most enchanted items will have a "durability" metric and will wear out with use. Periodic repair will help them last longer, but not indefinitely. Of course, some enchantments have a built in durability either from charges, or an expiration date. But these do not affect the underlying item.
As for templates, no they will not significantly affect what can be put on the item. A skill boosting enchantment could be placed on a ring or on your sword or shield or helmet.
Global player cooldowns and caps will prevent unloading a ton of sustained skill, stat and other boosters at once for combined effect.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
SHAMUS13
Re: Decisions
04/20/2014 02:21 AM CDT
Cambrinth crafting was simply an idea to explain at least in part the workings of items such as cambrinth powered wayerd pyramids, and to give cambrinth retuning a home.
We also have mana powered light sources, but they are not made from actual cambrinth, if i recall.
I was thinking, that 'cambrinth' crafting could cover devices storing or converting raw mystical energies into for example heat, light, motion etc.
At any rate, cambrinths are more than beads simply storing mana.
We also have mana powered light sources, but they are not made from actual cambrinth, if i recall.
I was thinking, that 'cambrinth' crafting could cover devices storing or converting raw mystical energies into for example heat, light, motion etc.
At any rate, cambrinths are more than beads simply storing mana.
DR-KODIUS
Re: Decisions
04/20/2014 02:29 AM CDT
Most enchanted items will not change appearance as a result of the enchantment. For example, a jaguar-bone burin would not likely appear any different once enchanted to be a functional tool. A shield enchanted with added protection will likely look the same (though it will have a unique enchanted FOCUS).
Now, I do expect to have enchantments that change the appearance of items and add periodic messages and/or fluff verbs.
Example:
A tempered steel longsword bathed in a hazy orange glow
>>tap sword
An orange globe of light races back and forth down the sword's blade, before settling at the tip.
A reinforced shalswar-hide buckler surrounded by twinkling purple motes
>>wave buckler
Waves of purple motes leave a sparkling trail behind the buckler as you wave it through the air.
And it may be possible for some of the elemental/lunar/holy weapon enchantments to impart some appearance adjustment.
In the initial release, items will only be able to have 1 enchantment. So you'd have to pick between an appearance modifying enchantment, and a functional one. Eventually I'd like to see you able to have 1 of each.
The sigil combinations used in the appearance enchantments will determine the end result (or explosion hehe). This leaves us room for thousands and thousands of potential options! And it will be extremely easy to add more (and this WILL be PAFO). Sorry, I'm not documenting all 10000000 of them :P
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Now, I do expect to have enchantments that change the appearance of items and add periodic messages and/or fluff verbs.
Example:
A tempered steel longsword bathed in a hazy orange glow
>>tap sword
An orange globe of light races back and forth down the sword's blade, before settling at the tip.
A reinforced shalswar-hide buckler surrounded by twinkling purple motes
>>wave buckler
Waves of purple motes leave a sparkling trail behind the buckler as you wave it through the air.
And it may be possible for some of the elemental/lunar/holy weapon enchantments to impart some appearance adjustment.
In the initial release, items will only be able to have 1 enchantment. So you'd have to pick between an appearance modifying enchantment, and a functional one. Eventually I'd like to see you able to have 1 of each.
The sigil combinations used in the appearance enchantments will determine the end result (or explosion hehe). This leaves us room for thousands and thousands of potential options! And it will be extremely easy to add more (and this WILL be PAFO). Sorry, I'm not documenting all 10000000 of them :P
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
DR-KODIUS
Re: Decisions
04/20/2014 02:31 AM CDT
Cambrinth retuning is a thing I could see being an Enchanting function. Though I might let MMs keep it as a Guild perk too.
The problem is we don't have all these other things Cambrinth might do beyond pyramids. And those aren't even craftable yet...
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
The problem is we don't have all these other things Cambrinth might do beyond pyramids. And those aren't even craftable yet...
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
COLDLIGHT
Re: Decisions
04/20/2014 04:11 AM CDT
>>Artificing kind of sprung up from the need for a blacksmithing analogue. A Discipline dealing with the physical, tool-like workhorse and utility enchantments. However, I've been going back and forth over what exactly it should contain and what should be included with Invoking and Binding (assuming we don't change their names too...)
>>So right now we have a solid 20 or so things to enchant with Artificing. This is why I feel the need to add more fluff/utility type enchantments to it.
>>the core is done and now I'm finishing messaging, adding a bunch of QoL improvements and deciding what the actual enchantments will be and how they will scale.
Raesh mentioned a while back that divination tools for lunar prediction might each be created by whatever crafting discipline fits concept-wise, maybe as an example: bones in carving, but the process that turns them into an actual prediction tool would be enchanting (sounds like artificing). That sounds reasonable as long as it's not so high a tier that we ever wound up with one of them not able to be made because there's no crafter skilled enough. Divination tools are sect-related, and players often want to use their sect tool, so each of the tools need to be always available.
>>Most enchanted items will have a "durability" metric and will wear out with use. Periodic repair will help them last longer, but not indefinitely. Of course, some enchantments have a built in durability either from charges, or an expiration date. But these do not affect the underlying item.
Sounds like things aren't set in stone here, so I just wanted to mention something in passing. Divination tools are different than other items in that once they're purchased or made (only bones could be made in the past) they're still not very useful or worth much. They take a long time to condition properly. Months or many months or even a year or two depending on how much time a player has to sit down and work on them. I think this should be taken into account when considering durability disadvantages.
One of the best features of new tools now is they don't break and have to be replaced as they did in the old days. With crafting now, even having to refresh the enchantment periodically seems like overkill, although I suppose as long as we never have to actually start over working on a new tool then it might be okay, albeit annoying. Raesh said once he was very happy with how tools function now, so I'm thinking there's a good chance they will remain the same.
>>Enchantable materials like Niniam and Orichalcum will not work properly if present in less than 33% of the mix, and some materials will have unique bonus properties (for example, adding a hair of kertig might add bonus size for fire enchantments. Too much though reduces the capacity). This makes mixology more important than the basic %s people use today.
I like the idea of puzzling aspects to crafting, although I agree with the poster who didn't want to burn through supplies of rare elements trying to solve the puzzle.
>>So right now we have a solid 20 or so things to enchant with Artificing. This is why I feel the need to add more fluff/utility type enchantments to it.
>>the core is done and now I'm finishing messaging, adding a bunch of QoL improvements and deciding what the actual enchantments will be and how they will scale.
Raesh mentioned a while back that divination tools for lunar prediction might each be created by whatever crafting discipline fits concept-wise, maybe as an example: bones in carving, but the process that turns them into an actual prediction tool would be enchanting (sounds like artificing). That sounds reasonable as long as it's not so high a tier that we ever wound up with one of them not able to be made because there's no crafter skilled enough. Divination tools are sect-related, and players often want to use their sect tool, so each of the tools need to be always available.
>>Most enchanted items will have a "durability" metric and will wear out with use. Periodic repair will help them last longer, but not indefinitely. Of course, some enchantments have a built in durability either from charges, or an expiration date. But these do not affect the underlying item.
Sounds like things aren't set in stone here, so I just wanted to mention something in passing. Divination tools are different than other items in that once they're purchased or made (only bones could be made in the past) they're still not very useful or worth much. They take a long time to condition properly. Months or many months or even a year or two depending on how much time a player has to sit down and work on them. I think this should be taken into account when considering durability disadvantages.
One of the best features of new tools now is they don't break and have to be replaced as they did in the old days. With crafting now, even having to refresh the enchantment periodically seems like overkill, although I suppose as long as we never have to actually start over working on a new tool then it might be okay, albeit annoying. Raesh said once he was very happy with how tools function now, so I'm thinking there's a good chance they will remain the same.
>>Enchantable materials like Niniam and Orichalcum will not work properly if present in less than 33% of the mix, and some materials will have unique bonus properties (for example, adding a hair of kertig might add bonus size for fire enchantments. Too much though reduces the capacity). This makes mixology more important than the basic %s people use today.
I like the idea of puzzling aspects to crafting, although I agree with the poster who didn't want to burn through supplies of rare elements trying to solve the puzzle.
DR-RAESH
Re: Decisions
04/20/2014 05:27 AM CDT
There are no plans for the enchantment system to change how divination tools work currently. It would just act as a source of new tools.
-Raesh
"Ever notice that B.A.'s flavor text swells in direct proportion to how much one of our characters is getting screwed?" - Brian Van Hoose
-Raesh
"Ever notice that B.A.'s flavor text swells in direct proportion to how much one of our characters is getting screwed?" - Brian Van Hoose
ROBERTDH
Re: Decisions
04/20/2014 05:31 AM CDT
>Now, I do expect to have enchantments that change the appearance of items and add periodic messages and/or fluff verbs.
Oh, yeah that makes sense then.
Does enchanting skill do anything ex-nihilo, or does it only modify stuff made from other crafts?
>Forgive my snark, but welcome to the life of a warrior mage.
Oh, yeah that makes sense then.
Does enchanting skill do anything ex-nihilo, or does it only modify stuff made from other crafts?
>Forgive my snark, but welcome to the life of a warrior mage.
ELWYNN
ILLIENA
Re: Decisions
04/20/2014 12:23 PM CDT
> Odds of permanent moonblades?
What does it mean for a weapon to be a permanent moonblade? At one end of the scale, it's just a cosmetic enchantment.
What does it mean for a weapon to be a permanent moonblade? At one end of the scale, it's just a cosmetic enchantment.
DR-KODIUS
Re: Decisions
04/20/2014 01:31 PM CDT
I cannot think of enchanting creating anything from nothing. All crafting systems to date require some input ingredients. I am looking at pebbles being the base ingredient for devourer enchantments... so there is that!
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
DR-ARMIFER
Re: Decisions
04/20/2014 04:16 PM CDT
>>Odds of permanent moonblades?
Low at this juncture. My goal right now is, frankly, to keep the number of MM-specific enchantments as low as reasonably possible, so that Enchanting skill access isn't insanely disproportionate (even though it will likely be somewhat disproportionate).
-Armifer
"In our days truth is taken to result from the effacing of the living man behind the mathematical structures that think themselves out in him, rather than he be thinking them." - Emmanuel Levinas
Low at this juncture. My goal right now is, frankly, to keep the number of MM-specific enchantments as low as reasonably possible, so that Enchanting skill access isn't insanely disproportionate (even though it will likely be somewhat disproportionate).
-Armifer
"In our days truth is taken to result from the effacing of the living man behind the mathematical structures that think themselves out in him, rather than he be thinking them." - Emmanuel Levinas
EMBODIEDCHAOS
Re: Decisions
04/21/2014 01:58 PM CDT
Enchanting sounds to have promise, what plans are there for mirror weapons to be part of this system? Im not real concerned with how they react, just that they can be enchanted, even if they are treated as harshly in the system as tyrium will be. My experience with mirror weapons is they don't play well with other systems (you can't apply poison to them, for instance) Mirror weapons are already sub par to basic forged, i fear they will only get worse and worse if they aren't given some TLC to move them into 3.never.
NIKPACK
Re: Decisions
04/21/2014 02:47 PM CDT
<<Enchanting sounds to have promise, what plans are there for mirror weapons to be part of this system? Im not real concerned with how they react, just that they can be enchanted, even if they are treated as harshly in the system as tyrium will be. My experience with mirror weapons is they don't play well with other systems (you can't apply poison to them, for instance) Mirror weapons are already sub par to basic forged, i fear they will only get worse and worse if they aren't given some TLC to move them into 3.never.
My apologies for not understanding, but are you are referring to the same mirror weapons that are often one of the most popular and most sought after weapons in the game, probably the most item requested item that be sold at auction? If so, I'm a little confused about the complaint here.
Nikpack
My apologies for not understanding, but are you are referring to the same mirror weapons that are often one of the most popular and most sought after weapons in the game, probably the most item requested item that be sold at auction? If so, I'm a little confused about the complaint here.
Nikpack
EMBODIEDCHAOS
Re: Decisions
04/21/2014 02:50 PM CDT
Yep, those are the ones. They are sought after because they are "suppose" to be the best, and people have hopes they will be again one day. They are really paper weights with bragging rights, at current.
TEVESHSZAT
Re: Decisions
04/21/2014 03:51 PM CDT
>>Yep, those are the ones. They are sought after because they are "suppose" to be the best, and people have hopes they will be again one day. They are really paper weights with bragging rights, at current.
This isn't really accurate.
Using the baseline mirror weapon, the mirror blade: http://elanthipedia.org/w/index.php/Weapon:T%27Kashi_mirror_blade_(1)
5/8/4 2 x/x 24 stones
Compare that to a T6 ME: http://elanthipedia.org/w/index.php/Weapon:Brass-edged_scimitar_with_a_hilt_molded_into_the_shape_of_dolphin
3/10/5 3 7/7 30 stones
Meanwhile, a Tyrium Jambiya
6/7/3 ? 9/4 27 stones
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 isn't really accurate.
Using the baseline mirror weapon, the mirror blade: http://elanthipedia.org/w/index.php/Weapon:T%27Kashi_mirror_blade_(1)
5/8/4 2 x/x 24 stones
Compare that to a T6 ME: http://elanthipedia.org/w/index.php/Weapon:Brass-edged_scimitar_with_a_hilt_molded_into_the_shape_of_dolphin
3/10/5 3 7/7 30 stones
Meanwhile, a Tyrium Jambiya
6/7/3 ? 9/4 27 stones
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.
EMBODIEDCHAOS
Re: Decisions
04/21/2014 04:19 PM CDT
The heavier mirror weapons aren't hit as hard, the mirror LE are still capped at mod puncture and basically nothing else. Even with a mirror flamberge, squanto found that a big tyrium greatsword hit harder and worked better in combat. They need some TLC and addition to the enchanting system.
A T'Kashi mirror knife is a light edged melee-ranged weapon.
A T'Kashi mirror knife trains the small edged skill.
The mirror knife is well (9/14) suited for backstabbing.
You are certain that it could do:
moderate (7/26) puncture damage
no (0/26) slice damage
dismal (1/26) impact damage
no fire damage
no cold damage
no electric damage
A T'Kashi mirror knife is a light edged melee-ranged weapon.
A T'Kashi mirror knife trains the small edged skill.
The mirror knife is well (9/14) suited for backstabbing.
You are certain that it could do:
moderate (7/26) puncture damage
no (0/26) slice damage
dismal (1/26) impact damage
no fire damage
no cold damage
no electric damage
DAMIAN
Re: Decisions
04/21/2014 07:52 PM CDT
As a side note, i think it's really crappy that when they were changed, mirror weapons now no longer cap out at 80 in reflex/agil, it used to be that once you hit 80, they were capped. Now i'm guessing the new cap is at 100, i hope. either way, crappy way to change the template after the sale.
Damian, a voice from the distant and long-forgotten past.
AIM:DamianDR
Damian, a voice from the distant and long-forgotten past.
AIM:DamianDR
ZUERCAT
Re: Decisions
04/21/2014 09:29 PM CDT
I'm in agreement with the folks who would have the armor & weapon enchantments stay in the same discipline. Even though this may become one of the more popular functions of the system, from the comments Kodius has made on how enchantments will be chosen, I could see the same base enchantments used for one or the other depending on the materials used. I can't imagine putting a glow enchantment on a sword would vary enough from a glow enchantment on a helm to justify 2 separate disciplines for each...
>My initial thought was affixing cambrinth is NOT an enchanting process.
I too could see 'embellishing' with cambrinth being in the Outfitting discipline. However, I could totally see refining & modifying cambrinth being in an Enchanting discipline. If I remember my lore correctly, cambrinth is mine-able, but can't imagine walking into the forge, plopping a bunch of cambrinth ore into the crucible and coming away with a usable chunk of cambrinth for some reason. Seems like it would need more finesse.
And I think about all the great cambrinth I have that I'll never use again because it holds too little now. I'd love to be able to increase the size of something based off skill. So my diminutive cambrinth cat, which currently holds 4, could have more base material added to it and would end up holding 10 or 12.
And I'm not sure it could work, but what about cambrinth (and other magic-materials) that could circumvent current magic practices. For instance, right now (with the right techs), when you have mana in a piece of cambrinth, your cyclic spells pull from that instead of your mana pool. What if you could enchant cambrinth into your armor, so that when the cambrinth in the armor is charged, it doesn't power your player-held spell, but rather your armor-held spell/enchantment?
Completely different from cambrinth, and maybe this will tread too much on upcoming Trader Illusion magic stuff, but what about enchantments that change the look of things for x-amount of time. For instance, if I have a fluffy pink backpack that holds a small Gnomish village, but I don't want to have a "backpack" any longer, I could go get an enchantment that would give the illusion of that backpack being a satchel, or a purse, or whatever. It would last for 30 or 90 days, when someone would LOOK at you, they would instead see "a fluffy pink purse", and once the time was up, it would just go back to the backpack. Kind of like a temporary dye or generic alteration system.
And finally, what about enchanted items that can manipulate current things into single items? For instance, you could enchant a sack with a "consolidation" enchantment which would let you put x-number of things into the sack and once closed, it would act like a single count item. As soon as you open the sack, the enchantment dissipates and the sack and all the items in the sack go back to the normal item count. You could ANALYZE the sack when it is closed to see the contents. Along this line, could also have some sort of weight reduction enchantment too.
~Kythryn
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
>My initial thought was affixing cambrinth is NOT an enchanting process.
I too could see 'embellishing' with cambrinth being in the Outfitting discipline. However, I could totally see refining & modifying cambrinth being in an Enchanting discipline. If I remember my lore correctly, cambrinth is mine-able, but can't imagine walking into the forge, plopping a bunch of cambrinth ore into the crucible and coming away with a usable chunk of cambrinth for some reason. Seems like it would need more finesse.
And I think about all the great cambrinth I have that I'll never use again because it holds too little now. I'd love to be able to increase the size of something based off skill. So my diminutive cambrinth cat, which currently holds 4, could have more base material added to it and would end up holding 10 or 12.
And I'm not sure it could work, but what about cambrinth (and other magic-materials) that could circumvent current magic practices. For instance, right now (with the right techs), when you have mana in a piece of cambrinth, your cyclic spells pull from that instead of your mana pool. What if you could enchant cambrinth into your armor, so that when the cambrinth in the armor is charged, it doesn't power your player-held spell, but rather your armor-held spell/enchantment?
Completely different from cambrinth, and maybe this will tread too much on upcoming Trader Illusion magic stuff, but what about enchantments that change the look of things for x-amount of time. For instance, if I have a fluffy pink backpack that holds a small Gnomish village, but I don't want to have a "backpack" any longer, I could go get an enchantment that would give the illusion of that backpack being a satchel, or a purse, or whatever. It would last for 30 or 90 days, when someone would LOOK at you, they would instead see "a fluffy pink purse", and once the time was up, it would just go back to the backpack. Kind of like a temporary dye or generic alteration system.
And finally, what about enchanted items that can manipulate current things into single items? For instance, you could enchant a sack with a "consolidation" enchantment which would let you put x-number of things into the sack and once closed, it would act like a single count item. As soon as you open the sack, the enchantment dissipates and the sack and all the items in the sack go back to the normal item count. You could ANALYZE the sack when it is closed to see the contents. Along this line, could also have some sort of weight reduction enchantment too.
~Kythryn
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
DR-KODIUS
Re: Decisions
04/21/2014 10:23 PM CDT
>>As a side note, i think it's really crappy that when they were changed, mirror weapons now no longer cap out at 80 in reflex/agil, it used to be that once you hit 80, they were capped. Now i'm guessing the new cap is at 100, i hope. either way, crappy way to change the template after the sale.
If I am recalling correctly, that was a side-effect of allowing them to go higher in stat gain. Stats go higher in 3.0 than they did in 2.0, and the appraisal tables changed along with it.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
If I am recalling correctly, that was a side-effect of allowing them to go higher in stat gain. Stats go higher in 3.0 than they did in 2.0, and the appraisal tables changed along with it.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
