>Why does everything need to have charges?

Because without charges, you either get a time decay, or a 2 hour, 1 use, timer.

I'm thinking the latter would be bloody useless, and the former would be inconvenient, since you'd have to get an enchantment, and run to kill things while it was 'fresh'.

You will not get a permanent always active enchantment of the type being discussed.

>There's no reason why player-made enchantments won't include permanent items to some degree -- one Moon Mage enchantment I really want to work on includes 'Permanent' in the name -- but I doubt it will ever be the standard.

I strongly suspect any 'permanent' enchantment you whip out will also require the mage to rip off his own arm and graft a shadowling in it's place, forever.

Personally, I don't care whether Barbs are allowed to use enchanted weapons or not. My normal weapons cut well enough.


Vinjince

---

"There are five possible operations for any army. If you can fight, fight; if you cannot fight, defend; if you cannot defend, flee; if you cannot flee, surrender; if you cannot surrender, die."

- Sima Yi

I like the idea of tiers of effects on weapons. I'd even like it to address the issue of charges. Sorry for another long post...

Perhaps the lowest level of effect would be that of imbuing a weapon with some form of 'elemental charge'. This would be similar to bless in that it might allow the attacker to attack noncorporeal elemental based creatures (fire, air, aether elementals, familiars), even though no creatures are currently set up this way. This would be the simplest form of enchanting and the only people that would burn these charges are those that are actively trying to negate magic (ie barbarians).

At this low level of enchanting, they would take no inner fire hits or other negative effects other than burning charges similar to how a bless works. This would be learned at a low level and would be equally effective at all levels (perhaps giving more charges as the enchanter gets more skilled) so as to give something to the lower level enchanters.

Next higher we get to changing damage types on weapons. These are your standard blades with additional elemental damage balanced with lower other stats (you've added some fire damage to that blade but now you've weakened its edge, and other similar situations). Perhaps a sheath might need to be specially enchanted to contain that blade with a large flame/arc of lightning/extreme cold (this simple imbue of a container would be another low level enchant to bring the young enchanters back in). Without such an enchant on the sheath, there would be the potential for damage to the one wearing the sheathed weapon.

I would like to see the charges burned per use instead of time based. On this level of enchant, all magic users (or perhaps md/elemental arcana based; elemental arcana being the supposed WM lore skill that supports their enchanting) would not burn charges. The weapon is just more versatile at this level, overall damage stays the same and as such it shouldn't be unbalancing to allow unlimited charges at this level. NMUs would burn charges at this level and eventually be left with a poor quality weapon that needs to be recharged to get that flame around it back. Barbarians at this level again would burn charges, at an increased rate as from the simple weapon enchant above that only allowed them to hit noncorporeal elementals. Additionally, at this level, barbarians might start taking minor inner fire hits for using such a blade.

At this second level of enchanting, I'd also like to start seeing some active enchants. For example, super-swappable weapons could be a second tier enchant. That is you could have weapons that swap from say a LE to a heavy blunt, or a longbow to a pike weapon, or even if mechanics allow for it they could swap between a few different weapon types allowing for 3-in-1 or 4-in-1 weapons. The point here being that magic allows for a useful breaking on the limitation that otherwise would not be conceivable by just holding a weapon differently as all the weapon swapping is currently. Again, as a second level enchant magic users might be able to do this indefinately, while NMU would continue to burn charges until it just would be stuck in one form until it is recharged.

Moving up again to the third tier of enchants, we might start getting blades with increased damage above what is possible now. However, these weapons would burn charges for any users, with those less skilled in MD potentially burning charges more quickly. Originally I was thinking that at this tier a War Mage that creates a weapon for himself wouldn't burn any charges, but I'm thinking now that the permanent additional damage might be unbalancing (they'd still have the permanent versatility of the second level enchant above, giving up some of the regular weapon stats to get elemental damage). As such, I could see Elemental Arcana being a factor in how many charges are burned per hit, thus a War Mage would maintain this enchant longer than anyone else as they gained skill.

At this third tier we may start seeing more useful combat weapon enchants. For example, perhaps tapping the blade to activate a balance or position boost. For example, if you had enough skill in the weapon you might see something like:

>tap sword
You tap your bastard sword.
Your sword suddenly erupts into action with a burst of speed. Managing to maintain a hold on the blade as it whips you around, you find yourself in a better position with respect to your opponent.

If your weapon skills aren't so great you might see something more like:

>tap sword
You tap your bastard sword.
Your sword suddenly erupts into action with a burst of speed. You lose your grip on your sword as it launches itself from your hand and slides across the ground.

In this second case, a lack of weapon skill forces the enchant to disarm you instead of giving you a position bonus. As we can see, its a bit more useful than just having the ability to change weapon types, but also comes with the cost of burning charges for magic users and a requirement that you're at least have some minimum of skill in the weapon you plan to use it on.

I'd like to see the top tier of enchants reserved for skilled war mages and only able to be used by those that create them. Additionally, I could see these enchants being a bit more unpredictable than the ones mentioned above (a percentage chance of firing for the pure damage versions). Perhaps each mage is capable of binding some special rune/crystal (that takes a good amount of time and perhaps some questing to make) to the weapon that gives it a percentage chance that the enchant activates and causes an explosion on impact. Perhaps if someone else ends up with the blade for too long, or if they attempt to use it, the enchant could explode inward instead of toward the creature and thus destroy the enchant and damage the blade instead of being useful for someone other than the creating mage.

As the enchants would be stackable, the mage might already have a blade that is not only capable of hitting noncorporeal elementals (1st tier), and has sacrificed some 'normal' damage for elemental damage (2nd tier), and has charged up the portion that increases this elemental damage (3rd tier), but now the weapon also has a chance to explode in the opponents face blasting a fireball through their head upon impact (highest tier).

Again, I'd like to see some enchants available at this level that give a choice to step away from just adding pure damage. I'm not quite sure what would qualify for this high a level of enchant though. I think perhaps a 'parry at any range' type of enchant might fit this high level enchant, but I'm not sure how to balance this other than making it unpredictable, and then who would bother to even use it?

I could also see effects such as controlling the battlefield at this tier (ie you POINT the sword at a creature and end up behind it after a flashy display, you RAISE the sword and the battlefield gets scrambled: creatures end up behind each other, the mage ends up on the flank of some random creature; basically just destroying the enemy line. I'm not feeling creative enough right now to come up with an IC reason how this would happen.) Again though, I suppose it doesn't have to be unreliable in this case, but I'm not really sure how else to limit it without giving it very low charges, although really in this last example its not really the most useful ability one could have.

Really, I could see even more tiers in between these, with varying levels of dependency on MD/Elemental Arcana, and varying charges and how they interact with one's affinity for magic. I'd definately also like to have the option to enchant with effects other than just extra damage. Also, minor enchants such as just imbuing a sheath to hold such weapons would be good to include enchanters with a wide spread of skills.

-Gandoloth

<<We'll call the first enchantment the Wizard's Lightning. It uses a highly refined enchantment that the user must magically trigger. A strong Magical Devices skill allows the user to trigger it as part of the swinging action, spending the charges of the device with no waste.

The second enchantment would be, say, Lightning for Dummies. It activates on physical contact. The trigger is completely nonmagical, but imprecise; sometimes more energy than's useful will bleed out in a strike, sometimes a strike just doesn't impact the blade in the right way to trigger the lightning. But, hey, no experience required.

Would something like this be acceptable?>>

Would thieves with high Magical Devices be able to use the first one?

Farewell, remorse: all good to me is lost; Evil, be thou my good.
~Paradise Lost (bk. IX, l. 171)

<<Depending on the exact nature of WM weapon-based enchanting, I will either agree or disagree with you Magmus; if the enchantment functions the same as bless, then I believe anyone should be able to use it with impunity. If it somehow draws mana from the area, or degrades over time rather than per-strike, or offers a scaling damage based on the remaining duration (less is less bonus), or any of a number of other factors, then I would say Barbarians should not be allowed to use it unless the enchantment can 'beat' thier inner fire, much like my casts would have to.

And I agree. But, considering it is a form of 'enchantment' beyond the small enchant-like Bless spell, where mana is actually imbued into the item and it can be re-charged (In some cases, other cases the death of the enchantment results in the destruction of the item) - I imagine it will be bound to the same rules as MM enchanting. If it acted like Bless, I could see Barbarians using Elemental-enchanted weapons without impunity. But considering how the enchanting system currently works for MM's, with all other enchanting systems rumored to have similar rules and guide-lines - I fervently oppose Barbarians being able to use a 'magical weapon' without some form of restriction. As others have pointed out, the origional proposal did say they would be able to use 'certain' types. If this is the case, so be it. But the enchantments that I imagine most people will want and will cost a signifigant amount of tender will be off limits due to the inherent nature of the item and the person wielding it.

<<I recall talk of enchanted weapons losing their enchantment slowly over time - thus requiring re-enchanting. Perhaps the simplest solution is to make weapons "run out a bit quicker" when used by NMUs and barbarians? Would that seem an acceptable trade off do you all think?

And a signifigant IF hit? And reduced stregnth of the enchant in the hands of a Barb? Yes. Very much so. If they are 'intelligent' enough to continue using a weapon that is counter-productive to their scope as a Magic-hating/fearing Guild, so be it.

<<The second enchantment would be, say, Lightning for Dummies. It activates on physical contact. The trigger is completely nonmagical, but imprecise; sometimes more energy than's useful will bleed out in a strike, sometimes a strike just doesn't impact the blade in the right way to trigger the lightning. But, hey, no experience required.

I don't really want to say one way or another if I agree or disagree with this statement. Does that mean it could accidentally discharge in a sheath? Does the enchantment still potentially be hindered by the MR of the wielder? There are more things to consider than putting it simply, unfortunately. A lot of us have been waiting for Enchanting for...well...since MM's got enchanting and we were told we would get a piece of the pie 'someday'. I just want to see it done well, and, without flaws. Things that may appear to be un-canon, to me, would be flaws. IE: Barbarians being able to use a magical weapon without any consideration, whereas, they have 'special' IF weapons that they can only use allready.

<<The Barbarian disadvantage, in this context at least, doesn't need to explored just in terms of categorical denial or permission.

I didn't realize it was being explored in the denial/permission scale.

<<Enough with the charges. Why does everything need to have charges? I hate charges. I think there should be more items akin to the newly revised polo cloaks that last forever, but have a refresh rate. I want to deal with an Enchanter once and be done with it, unless I want more Enchanted goodness on top of what I already have

I hope not. Because then, Enchanters could charge 100 plat for a measily, fluffy, fire enchant that does very little bonus. I allready intend to highball all my enchantments, in hopes, due to the rarity of Incinerate I may be able to enchant weapons with Blackfire fairly effectively and on the regular. But that all depends if the system actually mimics what the origional system was to be, with the stealing of any spells 'runes', etc.

When it all boils down, I think we are running into the old semantics wall pretty strongly by this point. Until someone officially makes an update on enchanting, we're merely speculating. And the last time I was apart of speculation, I think, it was when I swore that "Dragonrealms would never cost money to play" - Here I am, many years later...paying. I rather not insert the proverbial foot into my mouth any longer until someone actually makes a statement concerning Weapon Enchanting.

~The Fire Lion Magmus Bloodston, Blackfire Enthusiast

>>Why bend over backwards to appease the barbarian guild?

Barbarians are not the only guild in the game capable of failing a Magical Devices skill check.

-Armifer
"You can't trust a magician, Jimmy." Fox had told him. "All magicians are liars. And when magicians lie, their lies become real."

>>Your proposal will make it possible for a magic shunning guild to use enchantments.

Nothing wrong with that as long as there are consequences for doing so.


~Thilan

Keep it civil and constructive, folks.

Thanks,

Wixs

With any questions or comments, feel free to contact me (Mod-Wixs@play.net), Senior Board Monitor Annwyl (DR-Annwyl@play.net), or Message Board Supervisor Cecco (DR-Cecco@play.net).

>They are using the item in a mundane fashion and wowie! Magic just happened! Durnil

Why can't I strap a bigger shield on my arm and wowie! use it? Why can't I train agility high enough to allow me to grab arrows faster out of my quiver? Why can't I carve lockpicks? Why is training foraging crippled because I dont have access to careful and precise?

Barbs have the same restrictions when using magic, only now we're going to sidestep them so they can use enchantments. Which means, that soon I'll be able to use that bigger shield, soon I'll be able to carve that lockpick, soon I can maximize learning of foraging, load arrows faster....

I don't want enchanting trivialized by saying that barbs can use them because 'it just happens.' What's the point of having restrictions then?

Targoth

>How would the clerics feel if WM magic started killing undead? It's basically the same thing here. There are lines drawn for reasons.

Personally? I wouldn't care. Because infringement on cleric niche means infringement on extra-cleric niche.

But since both guilds already use magic, that's a piss poor comparison.

<<I'm all for traders and thieves using enchantments. That doesn't bother me the least bit. The problem is the barbarian guild.>>

Thank you!!

A healthy amount of thieves/traders train a lot in MD just for the day we might get...something to use it on:(


Farewell, remorse: all good to me is lost; Evil, be thou my good.
~Paradise Lost (bk. IX, l. 171)

"How would the clerics feel if WM magic started killing undead? It's basically the same thing here. There are lines drawn for reasons."

Just makes me laugh. War Mages magic can already kill undead and in some cases better than a cleric....and as Ucu mentioned are really bad comparison. (you probably meant noncorporial undead....and no you can't do that right now, but frankly there is no prohibition on war mages having a spell that can harm noncorporeal undead anymore...that was discussed when clerics received TM against living)



"I like it here, the clerics are nice and the others are dead"

>>If they do continue, like I said, the developers should get in touch with me so I can give them a list of rules I would like bent in my favor

That doesn't happen for warrior mages already?

~Arwinia

Thieves will continue to be dominated by the awesome power of the perceive health ability - that which causes rivers to dry up, babies to cry, and the earth to shake.
Stand back mortal, lest ye health be perceived.
-Ssra

Nice to know this has finally become a large, involving and controversial enough thread for the trolls to start gathering.

> I would personally defer to them rather than whatever conceptions I may have about their guild.

This is what I'm going on though, what the GMs have said about barbarians since the beginning, that they hate magic, and are disruptive to magic. That's how it's always been, except for the exceptions mentioned earlier, gweths and such...

What I'm trying to prevent is adding even more exceptions. Or if that doesn't work, than allow other guilds to make exceptions as well.

Targoth

>A healthy amount of thieves/traders train a lot in MD just for the day we might get...something to use it on:(

Exactly, I think that there should be a reason to train even if its difficult to do so. That way everyone has an incentive. And technically, barbarians could too, they just couldn't advance.

Wasn't the old agreement something aruther like barbs got very high BMR because they cast off all future use of magical things... with only VERY few exceptions to the rule for the sake of the 'player experience'. So I'd say that to keep in tune with this either BMR would have to be reduced, or elemental magic will/should be classified in the magic theory as the most natural form of magic.. an thus why barbs would be able to use the enchanted weapons. Also though elemental magic would now be able to effect them more easily.



~Worrclan, Dwarf of the Realms-

I vote for column A:

<<BMR would have to be reduced


-Sephos

Holy crap I agree with Worrclan.


::twitch::

Seriously, not a bad compromise for the PvP side.

Here's the way I see it. Barbarians can be purists... no magic of any sort and get a better BMR, Or they can be "semi-barb" and have a weaker BMR and get access to magic goodies in whatever form. This "purity level" can also effect how good of a barbarian they are.. how good their barbarian-only abilities are.. like roars and dances are.. etc etc..


Oh wait. Yeah they call that Inner Fire.

To the trolls: please take your selfish complaints (that contribute nothing to this discussion) about systems that aren't out yet to the "complaints about systems that aren't out yet folder"

It's there.. keep looking...

~Nazaruss