Previous
What actually is the benefit of TM spells over other forms of damage dealing spells? The more I read the less I understand what bonus TM actually affords. The more I play the more TM simply becomes something to train. The most effective (for me) spells that I use often are non-TM. This isn't a rhetorical question, I really do not know how TM plays into improving the potential of a spell over regular non-TM damaging spells. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
"Oderint dum metuant."
VANDREAD
CASTERFASTER
Re: TM
03/25/2004 11:22 AM CST
Right now TM is like a ranged weapon skill of sorts. Non-TM spells feel like they just circumvent combat mechanics and are simple stat checks so they tend to be more effective. Hopefully there will be a paradigm shift so that TM based spells are the real damage dealers and Non-TM spells are not as effective. Like someone said earlier, if you hear that your guild is getting a new damaging spell, you should be crossing your fingers that it is TM. It simply isn't the case right now. You want all your damaging spells to be Non-TM spells based off the primary stat for your guild. Unless you're a WM. You want it targeted just you can learn the skill. :-/
SERNATINGERM
Re: TM
03/25/2004 12:24 PM CST
I don't see where this impression comes from. My favorite damage dealers are Aether Lash (when I just want it dead), or Gar Zeng if I want to sap the last shreds of vitality from a weakened enemy or unbalance something I'm fighting with at melee.
My favorite non-targetted offensive spells include Ice Patch, which rarely kills, and Tingle, which never does. I admit maybe if I used lightning bolt more often, I might find that I liked it, but at this point I never really think to use it. Plus being limitted to dry outdoors areas discourages its use.
My favorite non-targetted offensive spells include Ice Patch, which rarely kills, and Tingle, which never does. I admit maybe if I used lightning bolt more often, I might find that I liked it, but at this point I never really think to use it. Plus being limitted to dry outdoors areas discourages its use.
MARGASH
Re: TM
03/25/2004 01:55 PM CST
>What actually is the benefit of TM spells over other forms of damage dealing spells?
1) They teach TM. TM is usd in other spells like IP/LB, etc.
2) Some TM spells are the most effective room clearers. CL and Fire Rain.
3) Shorter prep time. I remeber tournies in which Galain used to use FS all the time. His TM was high enough that a non-targetted cast still killed. The benefit is he basically always had the spell ready, spells like LB or IP take alot longer to prep and can catch you with your pants down.
4) DB is a TM spell that allows you to use magic in low mana rooms. Also no prep time once it's cast.
That's all I can think of. Despite these benefits, I do agree with some of the sentiments in your post.
Tessaa
1) They teach TM. TM is usd in other spells like IP/LB, etc.
2) Some TM spells are the most effective room clearers. CL and Fire Rain.
3) Shorter prep time. I remeber tournies in which Galain used to use FS all the time. His TM was high enough that a non-targetted cast still killed. The benefit is he basically always had the spell ready, spells like LB or IP take alot longer to prep and can catch you with your pants down.
4) DB is a TM spell that allows you to use magic in low mana rooms. Also no prep time once it's cast.
That's all I can think of. Despite these benefits, I do agree with some of the sentiments in your post.
Tessaa
WEAVERM6
Re: TM
03/25/2004 06:56 PM CST
>I don't see where this impression comes from. My favorite damage dealers are Aether Lash (when I just want it dead), or Gar Zeng if I want to sap the last shreds of vitality from a weakened enemy or unbalance something I'm fighting with at melee.
Look at some of the damage capabilities of spells that don't use TM.
>1) They teach TM. TM is usd in other spells like IP/LB, etc.
This is a bad point. If we didn't have TM in the first place, we wouldn't need it for other spells. TM for the sake of TM is not good.
>2) Some TM spells are the most effective room clearers. CL and Fire Rain.
This is true. We have TM so we get room clearing spells like this, but until you get them TM really has no purpose.
>3) Shorter prep time. I remeber tournies in which Galain used to use FS all the time. His TM was high enough that a non-targetted cast still killed. The benefit is he basically always had the spell ready, spells like LB or IP take alot longer to prep and can catch you with your pants down.
This will no longer be true when multishot spells are downtweaked. First tier spells are easier to snap cast because they're first tier. I imagine Galain can do pretty well with a snap casted LB too.
>4) DB is a TM spell that allows you to use magic in low mana rooms. Also no prep time once it's cast.
Still TM for the sake of TM, though no other guild has spell like this. Putting up with TM so we can have special spells like this.
Nester
Look at some of the damage capabilities of spells that don't use TM.
>1) They teach TM. TM is usd in other spells like IP/LB, etc.
This is a bad point. If we didn't have TM in the first place, we wouldn't need it for other spells. TM for the sake of TM is not good.
>2) Some TM spells are the most effective room clearers. CL and Fire Rain.
This is true. We have TM so we get room clearing spells like this, but until you get them TM really has no purpose.
>3) Shorter prep time. I remeber tournies in which Galain used to use FS all the time. His TM was high enough that a non-targetted cast still killed. The benefit is he basically always had the spell ready, spells like LB or IP take alot longer to prep and can catch you with your pants down.
This will no longer be true when multishot spells are downtweaked. First tier spells are easier to snap cast because they're first tier. I imagine Galain can do pretty well with a snap casted LB too.
>4) DB is a TM spell that allows you to use magic in low mana rooms. Also no prep time once it's cast.
Still TM for the sake of TM, though no other guild has spell like this. Putting up with TM so we can have special spells like this.
Nester
MARGASH
Re: TM
03/25/2004 07:01 PM CST
>First tier spells are easier to snap cast because they're first tier.
TM spells are easier to snap cast because they have a 4-5 second prep time instead of 20 seconds. The shorter prep time of TM spells is a definite advantage.
Prep fs 20
4 seconds later...
you feel fully prepared
Prep lb 20
20 seconds later...
you feel fully prepared
Tessaa
TM spells are easier to snap cast because they have a 4-5 second prep time instead of 20 seconds. The shorter prep time of TM spells is a definite advantage.
Prep fs 20
4 seconds later...
you feel fully prepared
Prep lb 20
20 seconds later...
you feel fully prepared
Tessaa
WEAVERM6
Re: TM
03/25/2004 07:09 PM CST
>TM spells are easier to snap cast because they have a 4-5 second prep time instead of 20 seconds. The shorter prep time of TM spells is a definite advantage.
You respond only to the worst point?
Nester
You respond only to the worst point?
Nester
AUFERO
Re: TM
03/25/2004 10:31 PM CST
>>Look at some of the damage capabilities of spells that don't use TM.<<
Which ones would those be? LB, DB, PW and MAB all use TM in the damage calculation, and therefore get more effective as you gain ranks in TM.
The only damaging spell I can think of that may not use TM (or it may, I've never heard either way) is IP. I certainly wouldn't want to rely on IP for damage.
Which ones would those be? LB, DB, PW and MAB all use TM in the damage calculation, and therefore get more effective as you gain ranks in TM.
The only damaging spell I can think of that may not use TM (or it may, I've never heard either way) is IP. I certainly wouldn't want to rely on IP for damage.
WEILM
Re: TM
03/25/2004 10:56 PM CST
>>>>Look at some of the damage capabilities of spells that don't use TM.<<
>>Which ones would those be? LB, DB, PW and MAB all use TM in the damage calculation, and therefore get more effective as you gain ranks in TM.
>>The only damaging spell I can think of that may not use TM (or it may, I've never heard either way) is IP. I certainly wouldn't want to rely on IP for damage.
I think the original poster is referring to the various attack spells that other guilds, usually non-magic primary, have that can damage their opponents that do not, in any fashion, use TM skill.
Most of them would be SvA, SvS or WvW, which are based off of stats, rather than skill, unlike TM spells...
~Kyn (Kynevon)
Weapons http://members.cox.net/trader-indigoe/weapon.html
Armor http://www.heromachine.com/drealms/
Mac OS X FE http://home.attbi.com/~fury42/
Circle http://www.terkowitz.com/
Maps http://www.rangerrawb.com/ranik/
>>Which ones would those be? LB, DB, PW and MAB all use TM in the damage calculation, and therefore get more effective as you gain ranks in TM.
>>The only damaging spell I can think of that may not use TM (or it may, I've never heard either way) is IP. I certainly wouldn't want to rely on IP for damage.
I think the original poster is referring to the various attack spells that other guilds, usually non-magic primary, have that can damage their opponents that do not, in any fashion, use TM skill.
Most of them would be SvA, SvS or WvW, which are based off of stats, rather than skill, unlike TM spells...
~Kyn (Kynevon)
Weapons http://members.cox.net/trader-indigoe/weapon.html
Armor http://www.heromachine.com/drealms/
Mac OS X FE http://home.attbi.com/~fury42/
Circle http://www.terkowitz.com/
Maps http://www.rangerrawb.com/ranik/
VANDREAD
Re: TM
03/26/2004 12:22 PM CST
Thanks for all the info. I'm not sure that TM for TM sake is much of a benefit but the others sound logical in theory. A couple of more questions if you don't mind. In TM spells does PM or TM have more of a factor of the effectiveness of a spell and in contested spells is it stats or PM skills have more impact?
"Oderint dum metuant."
"Oderint dum metuant."
MARGASH
Re: TM
03/26/2004 01:38 PM CST
>In TM spells does PM or TM have more of a factor of the effectiveness of a spell
Casting a spell at equal mana, TM is definetly a bigger factor. TM is a weapon. TM skill is your skill in that weapon. PM allows you to put more mana into the spell, changing it from a Light Edged weapon to potentially a Two-handed heavy blunt.
PM does not influence TM spells except that it allows you to put more mana into the spell, and helps overcome the MR of the target.
>and in contested spells is it stats or PM skills have more impact?
Again, PM does nothing in contested spells except allow you to put more mana into the spell and overcome the target's MR. Mana can definetly be a factor, as can Magic Resistance (in the case of a barbarian). However, I'd rather have 10 more reflex and 10 more agility when casting a SvA spell than 100 more PM.
Tessaa
Casting a spell at equal mana, TM is definetly a bigger factor. TM is a weapon. TM skill is your skill in that weapon. PM allows you to put more mana into the spell, changing it from a Light Edged weapon to potentially a Two-handed heavy blunt.
PM does not influence TM spells except that it allows you to put more mana into the spell, and helps overcome the MR of the target.
>and in contested spells is it stats or PM skills have more impact?
Again, PM does nothing in contested spells except allow you to put more mana into the spell and overcome the target's MR. Mana can definetly be a factor, as can Magic Resistance (in the case of a barbarian). However, I'd rather have 10 more reflex and 10 more agility when casting a SvA spell than 100 more PM.
Tessaa
ROBERTDH
Re: TM
03/26/2004 06:34 PM CST
>"The only damaging spell I can think of that may not use TM (or it may, I've never heard either way) is IP. I certainly wouldn't want to rely on IP for damage."
I am reasonably certain that IP uses targeted. IP, however, does no damage.
-Robert
-___Please, learn to argue before you try:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/
I am reasonably certain that IP uses targeted. IP, however, does no damage.
-Robert
-___Please, learn to argue before you try:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/
LEMAGRAG
Re: TM
03/26/2004 08:14 PM CST
>>I am reasonably certain that IP uses targeted. IP, however, does no damage.
If you could post evidence of IP not doing damage, I'd be impressed.
~player of Gulphphunger
If you could post evidence of IP not doing damage, I'd be impressed.
~player of Gulphphunger
AUFERO
Re: TM
03/26/2004 08:40 PM CST
>>If you could post evidence of IP not doing damage, I'd be impressed.<<
Actually, I suspect that's correct. Try it on a creature or NPC that's at death's door a few times - even on leg breaks, they don't seem to die instantly.
Actually, I suspect that's correct. Try it on a creature or NPC that's at death's door a few times - even on leg breaks, they don't seem to die instantly.
LEMAGRAG
Re: TM
03/26/2004 11:15 PM CST
>>Actually, I suspect that's correct. Try it on a creature or NPC that's at death's door a few times - even on leg breaks, they don't seem to die instantly.
Well, I've killed creatures with Ice Patch alone, so I'm afraid I can't really agree. In addition, leg breaks aren't a good indicator because legs are a non-critical area and with the pumped up stamina of critters, I wouldn't expect a leg break to kill them (despite their health). Death's door is a range as far as I know, not a specific number of hit points. Furthermore, the original statement was that "IP, however, does no damage." We're not talking about killing it; the question is whether it does damage. It does, assuming the creature can be affected by the spell in the first place; otherwise it's a moot point to begin with.
I'm not Frogspawn and Gulph isn't a guild "elder" so I won't say I'm 100% right, but I'd like to see the evidence to the contrary (i.e. Ice Patch does no damage).
~player of Gulphphunger
Well, I've killed creatures with Ice Patch alone, so I'm afraid I can't really agree. In addition, leg breaks aren't a good indicator because legs are a non-critical area and with the pumped up stamina of critters, I wouldn't expect a leg break to kill them (despite their health). Death's door is a range as far as I know, not a specific number of hit points. Furthermore, the original statement was that "IP, however, does no damage." We're not talking about killing it; the question is whether it does damage. It does, assuming the creature can be affected by the spell in the first place; otherwise it's a moot point to begin with.
I'm not Frogspawn and Gulph isn't a guild "elder" so I won't say I'm 100% right, but I'd like to see the evidence to the contrary (i.e. Ice Patch does no damage).
~player of Gulphphunger
MARGASH
Re: TM
03/27/2004 12:48 AM CST
IP does damage. I'm not sure if it does vitality damage ( your "hit points"). IP can kill from crits.
Example: Mental Blast does nerve damage. Mental blast does no vitality damage.
>I'm not Frogspawn...so I won't say I'm 100% right,
When Frogspawn posted her list of spells min/max preps, there were a few errors. Still, I understand your point.
Tessaa
Example: Mental Blast does nerve damage. Mental blast does no vitality damage.
>I'm not Frogspawn...so I won't say I'm 100% right,
When Frogspawn posted her list of spells min/max preps, there were a few errors. Still, I understand your point.
Tessaa
WEAVERM6
Re: TM
03/27/2004 12:53 AM CST
>Which ones would those be? LB, DB, PW and MAB all use TM in the damage calculation, and therefore get more effective as you gain ranks in TM.
>The only damaging spell I can think of that may not use TM (or it may, I've never heard either way) is IP. I certainly wouldn't want to rely on IP for damage.
I was referring to guilds that have attack spells but no access to TM (barring devices/scrolls). It's really the only point of comparison since all of our damaging spells (even some that don't) use TM.
IP uses TM. Even tremor uses TM.
>Well, I've killed creatures with Ice Patch alone, so I'm afraid I can't really agree. In addition, leg breaks aren't a good indicator because legs are a non-critical area and with the pumped up stamina of critters, I wouldn't expect a leg break to kill them (despite their health). Death's door is a range as far as I know, not a specific number of hit points. Furthermore, the original statement was that "IP, however, does no damage." We're not talking about killing it; the question is whether it does damage. It does, assuming the creature can be affected by the spell in the first place; otherwise it's a moot point to begin with.
If it's even debatable it's not really worth arguing about.
Nester
>The only damaging spell I can think of that may not use TM (or it may, I've never heard either way) is IP. I certainly wouldn't want to rely on IP for damage.
I was referring to guilds that have attack spells but no access to TM (barring devices/scrolls). It's really the only point of comparison since all of our damaging spells (even some that don't) use TM.
IP uses TM. Even tremor uses TM.
>Well, I've killed creatures with Ice Patch alone, so I'm afraid I can't really agree. In addition, leg breaks aren't a good indicator because legs are a non-critical area and with the pumped up stamina of critters, I wouldn't expect a leg break to kill them (despite their health). Death's door is a range as far as I know, not a specific number of hit points. Furthermore, the original statement was that "IP, however, does no damage." We're not talking about killing it; the question is whether it does damage. It does, assuming the creature can be affected by the spell in the first place; otherwise it's a moot point to begin with.
If it's even debatable it's not really worth arguing about.
Nester
MARGASH
WEAVERM6
MARGASH
FONTAINED2
Re: TM
03/27/2004 01:37 AM CST
<<It teaches TM.>>
Are you certain of this? Like you've checked it lately? I've not cast tremor much so I wasn't sure ... however, I just started a hunting trip against things that teach me TM. I successfully cast tremor on five of these critters while my target was still clear and it stayed clear.
Gizella
Are you certain of this? Like you've checked it lately? I've not cast tremor much so I wasn't sure ... however, I just started a hunting trip against things that teach me TM. I successfully cast tremor on five of these critters while my target was still clear and it stayed clear.
Gizella
MIKEM1
Re: TM
03/27/2004 01:42 AM CST
<<It teaches TM.>>
<<Are you certain of this?
Well, I haven't checked it out but I do know that in Rigby's post on contested spells (where is Rigby, anyway?), he wrote:
<<For Spell vs Agility spells: The caster will use discipline, charisma, reflex and agility and targeted magic. The target uses reflex, agility, and evasion. Modifiers are balance of the target and how much TM/Evasion factors into the particular spell. The changes here are the addition of reflex and agility to the caster's side of the equation, and appropriate fiddling to maintain formula balance on the side of the target.
<<Are you certain of this?
Well, I haven't checked it out but I do know that in Rigby's post on contested spells (where is Rigby, anyway?), he wrote:
<<For Spell vs Agility spells: The caster will use discipline, charisma, reflex and agility and targeted magic. The target uses reflex, agility, and evasion. Modifiers are balance of the target and how much TM/Evasion factors into the particular spell. The changes here are the addition of reflex and agility to the caster's side of the equation, and appropriate fiddling to maintain formula balance on the side of the target.
MARGASH
Re: TM
03/27/2004 01:48 AM CST
Circle: 293*
SKILL: Rank/Percent towards next rank/Amount learning
Targeted Magic: 896* 87.17% clear
Time Development Points: 65 Favors: 6 Deaths: 119
Overall state of mind: clear
EXP HELP for more information
>cast
You gesture.
The earth beneath your feet begins to shake violently!
Your ethereal shield crackles with energy!
You manage to remain upright, but are a bit wobbly!
The caracal manages to stay upright, but looks a bit wobbly!
Roundtime: 3 seconds.
R>exp target
Circle: 293
SKILL: Rank/Percent towards next rank/Amount learning
Targeted Magic: 896* 87.17% learning
*Skill rank and circle were changed.
________________
Another positive is I gained 2 favors while testing in order to clear TM,
Tessaa
SKILL: Rank/Percent towards next rank/Amount learning
Targeted Magic: 896* 87.17% clear
Time Development Points: 65 Favors: 6 Deaths: 119
Overall state of mind: clear
EXP HELP for more information
>cast
You gesture.
The earth beneath your feet begins to shake violently!
Your ethereal shield crackles with energy!
You manage to remain upright, but are a bit wobbly!
The caracal manages to stay upright, but looks a bit wobbly!
Roundtime: 3 seconds.
R>exp target
Circle: 293
SKILL: Rank/Percent towards next rank/Amount learning
Targeted Magic: 896* 87.17% learning
*Skill rank and circle were changed.
________________
Another positive is I gained 2 favors while testing in order to clear TM,
Tessaa
AUFERO
Re: TM
03/27/2004 01:49 AM CST
>>I was referring to guilds that have attack spells but no access to TM (barring devices/scrolls).<<
Not sure if we're even talking about the same thing, then. The only spells I can think of that fit that description are Smite Foe and Nissa's Binding. (Paladin and Empath being the only guilds that have spells but no access to TM.) Neither spell seems like much of a reason for doing away with TM for magic-primary guilds. It makes sense to me that attack spells for Mages would be based more heavily on, well... magic.
Not sure if we're even talking about the same thing, then. The only spells I can think of that fit that description are Smite Foe and Nissa's Binding. (Paladin and Empath being the only guilds that have spells but no access to TM.) Neither spell seems like much of a reason for doing away with TM for magic-primary guilds. It makes sense to me that attack spells for Mages would be based more heavily on, well... magic.
MARGASH
Re: TM
03/27/2004 01:49 AM CST
Well, I haven't checked it out but I do know that in Rigby's post on contested spells (where is Rigby, anyway?), he wrote:
<<For Spell vs Agility spells: The caster will use discipline, charisma, reflex and agility and targeted magic. The target uses reflex, agility, and evasion. Modifiers are balance of the target and how much TM/Evasion factors into the particular spell. The changes here are the addition of reflex and agility to the caster's side of the equation, and appropriate fiddling to maintain formula balance on the side of the target.
____________
I don't think all SvA spells use TM. For example, Ranger spells. It would suck (well, actually it would rock) if they used TM.
Tessaa
<<For Spell vs Agility spells: The caster will use discipline, charisma, reflex and agility and targeted magic. The target uses reflex, agility, and evasion. Modifiers are balance of the target and how much TM/Evasion factors into the particular spell. The changes here are the addition of reflex and agility to the caster's side of the equation, and appropriate fiddling to maintain formula balance on the side of the target.
____________
I don't think all SvA spells use TM. For example, Ranger spells. It would suck (well, actually it would rock) if they used TM.
Tessaa
MARGASH
Re: TM
03/27/2004 01:53 AM CST
>(Paladin and Empath being the only guilds that have spells but no access to TM.)
Ranger. Bard. Can bards learn TM? Could be wrong on bard but ranger for sure.
Tessaa
Ranger. Bard. Can bards learn TM? Could be wrong on bard but ranger for sure.
Tessaa
MIKEM1
Re: TM
03/27/2004 02:00 AM CST
<<I don't think all SvA spells use TM. For example, Ranger spells. It would suck (well, actually it would rock) if they used TM.
They may, or may not. Don't really care. Just pasting a potentially relevant portion of one of Rigby's (he's still around, right?) posts. For those who may not have a copy, I'll post it in it's entirety.
Category Abilities, Skills and Magic (4)
Topic General Magic Feedback - CORE ISSUES -(CAST, PREPARE, HARNESS, PERCEIVE) (37)
By DR-RIGBY from PLAY.NET (Magic Team Supervisor)
On Sep 4, 2002 at 14:25
Subject Contested Spell Change and Explanation (3304)
<< >>
Greets,
Some contested spell formula changes are coming as soon as Valdrik, Damissak and I can get some final testing done. Likely before or on the coming weekend (Sept 6th-8th).
Contested spells include Will vs Will, Spell vs Stamina, and Spell vs Agility. This change may possibly cause mages to alter their spell casting habits when using a contested spell. Since this has the potential to be an upset to what you've gotten used to, we're revealing what stats are applicable for all contested spells.
For Spell vs Agility spells: The caster will use discipline, charisma, reflex and agility and targeted magic. The target uses reflex, agility, and evasion. Modifiers are balance of the target and how much TM/Evasion factors into the particular spell. The changes here are the addition of reflex and agility to the caster's side of the equation, and appropriate fiddling to maintain formula balance on the side of the target.
For Will(Spell) vs Will spells: The caster will use discipline, charisma, and intelligence. The target uses discipline, charisma, and intelligence. A modifier is nerve damage for both sides. Changes here include the addition of intelligence to both sides.
For Spell vs Stamina spells: The caster will use discipline, charisma, stamina and strength. The target uses stamina and strength. A modifier is current health of the target. The change here is the addition of stamina and strength to the part of the caster, and appropriate fiddling to maintain forumla balance on the side of the target.
ALL contested spells are currently and will continue to be modified by range to target (except for area spells), and by how much mana the caster puts into the spell. Both sides of the formula are otherwise equally balanced, but we are not revealing the ratios -- only which stats are used, not which is most important. Primary magic does NOT play a role except in the fact that it allows a mage to put more mana into the spell.
This will mean that individual mages, depending on how they have and want to train their stats, will tend to have a particular type of contested spell that they excel at. Likewise, there will be particular targets who may be more or less resistant to specific types of contested spells. All of the above applies equally to both critters and players.
I'm sure this was a pretty enlightening post. ;)
Rigby
They may, or may not. Don't really care. Just pasting a potentially relevant portion of one of Rigby's (he's still around, right?) posts. For those who may not have a copy, I'll post it in it's entirety.
Category Abilities, Skills and Magic (4)
Topic General Magic Feedback - CORE ISSUES -(CAST, PREPARE, HARNESS, PERCEIVE) (37)
By DR-RIGBY from PLAY.NET (Magic Team Supervisor)
On Sep 4, 2002 at 14:25
Subject Contested Spell Change and Explanation (3304)
<< >>
Greets,
Some contested spell formula changes are coming as soon as Valdrik, Damissak and I can get some final testing done. Likely before or on the coming weekend (Sept 6th-8th).
Contested spells include Will vs Will, Spell vs Stamina, and Spell vs Agility. This change may possibly cause mages to alter their spell casting habits when using a contested spell. Since this has the potential to be an upset to what you've gotten used to, we're revealing what stats are applicable for all contested spells.
For Spell vs Agility spells: The caster will use discipline, charisma, reflex and agility and targeted magic. The target uses reflex, agility, and evasion. Modifiers are balance of the target and how much TM/Evasion factors into the particular spell. The changes here are the addition of reflex and agility to the caster's side of the equation, and appropriate fiddling to maintain formula balance on the side of the target.
For Will(Spell) vs Will spells: The caster will use discipline, charisma, and intelligence. The target uses discipline, charisma, and intelligence. A modifier is nerve damage for both sides. Changes here include the addition of intelligence to both sides.
For Spell vs Stamina spells: The caster will use discipline, charisma, stamina and strength. The target uses stamina and strength. A modifier is current health of the target. The change here is the addition of stamina and strength to the part of the caster, and appropriate fiddling to maintain forumla balance on the side of the target.
ALL contested spells are currently and will continue to be modified by range to target (except for area spells), and by how much mana the caster puts into the spell. Both sides of the formula are otherwise equally balanced, but we are not revealing the ratios -- only which stats are used, not which is most important. Primary magic does NOT play a role except in the fact that it allows a mage to put more mana into the spell.
This will mean that individual mages, depending on how they have and want to train their stats, will tend to have a particular type of contested spell that they excel at. Likewise, there will be particular targets who may be more or less resistant to specific types of contested spells. All of the above applies equally to both critters and players.
I'm sure this was a pretty enlightening post. ;)
Rigby
FONTAINED2
Re: TM
03/27/2004 02:09 AM CST
I wonder why it didn't teach me then. Granted, I'm fairly deep into the soft cap on celpeze but after tremoring I chained the same five lizards and got TM thoughtful. Definitely going to try it again on something bigger.
However, this brings up another point. We've got a spell that teaches TM without damaging the critter. They stripped the TM training from that one scroll spell empaths could cast (think it was energy manacles) based at least partly on the lack of damage.
Gizella
P.S. Sorry for questioning your post, Nester.
However, this brings up another point. We've got a spell that teaches TM without damaging the critter. They stripped the TM training from that one scroll spell empaths could cast (think it was energy manacles) based at least partly on the lack of damage.
Gizella
P.S. Sorry for questioning your post, Nester.
WEAVERM6
Re: TM
03/27/2004 02:26 AM CST
>Not sure if we're even talking about the same thing, then. The only spells I can think of that fit that description are Smite Foe and Nissa's Binding. (Paladin and Empath being the only guilds that have spells but no access to TM.) Neither spell seems like much of a reason for doing away with TM for magic-primary guilds. It makes sense to me that attack spells for Mages would be based more heavily on, well... magic.
Break Branch, Harawep's Bonds, Swarm, maybe some more paladin spells, maybe bard spells (I don't think they use TM). The point is, why do magic primary guilds have to use TM for our damage spells when guilds that don't have to train the skill at all do pretty damn well without it?
Take the music break up for example. Bards were stuck with 5 different music skills while everyone else could use every instrument based on one skill. Primary magic guilds attacks are based on two magic skills while other guilds spells are based on one.
TM isn't an advantage.
Nester
Break Branch, Harawep's Bonds, Swarm, maybe some more paladin spells, maybe bard spells (I don't think they use TM). The point is, why do magic primary guilds have to use TM for our damage spells when guilds that don't have to train the skill at all do pretty damn well without it?
Take the music break up for example. Bards were stuck with 5 different music skills while everyone else could use every instrument based on one skill. Primary magic guilds attacks are based on two magic skills while other guilds spells are based on one.
TM isn't an advantage.
Nester
WEAVERM6
Re: TM
03/27/2004 02:29 AM CST
>P.S. Sorry for questioning your post, Nester.
I wouldn't expect someone with a gazillion ranks of TM to notice. You have to be in an area that your TM skill is on the lower end of (preposition!). I had a friend I used to take into Lang peccs and swamp trolls and have her cast tremor. 3 casts would lock her at 90-100 ranks.
Nester
I wouldn't expect someone with a gazillion ranks of TM to notice. You have to be in an area that your TM skill is on the lower end of (preposition!). I had a friend I used to take into Lang peccs and swamp trolls and have her cast tremor. 3 casts would lock her at 90-100 ranks.
Nester
AUFERO
Re: TM
03/27/2004 02:49 AM CST
>>Ranger. Bard. Can bards learn TM? Could be wrong on bard but ranger for sure.<<
Rangers can learn TM. (and do, from some of their spells)
Arguable whether Bards get spells at all - if you think of enchantes as spells (I don't) then sure.
Rangers can learn TM. (and do, from some of their spells)
Arguable whether Bards get spells at all - if you think of enchantes as spells (I don't) then sure.
AUFERO
Re: TM
03/27/2004 03:08 AM CST
>>Break Branch, Harawep's Bonds, Swarm, maybe some more paladin spells, maybe bard spells (I don't think they use TM). The point is, why do magic primary guilds have to use TM for our damage spells when guilds that don't have to train the skill at all do pretty damn well without it?<<
Not going to touch Bard enchantes in this argument - they work too differently. Paladin and Ranger are both magic tert guilds, so the spells you're talking about take fairly large amounts of training a tert skillset to be effective. Admittedly, magic may be the easiest tert skillset in the game to train, but none of our spells rely on tert skills for their effectiveness.
Do you really want your spells to be based on things we can't train as easily as magic?
Not going to touch Bard enchantes in this argument - they work too differently. Paladin and Ranger are both magic tert guilds, so the spells you're talking about take fairly large amounts of training a tert skillset to be effective. Admittedly, magic may be the easiest tert skillset in the game to train, but none of our spells rely on tert skills for their effectiveness.
Do you really want your spells to be based on things we can't train as easily as magic?
AUFERO
Re: TM
03/27/2004 03:15 AM CST
>>I had a friend I used to take into Lang peccs and swamp trolls and have her cast tremor. 3 casts would lock her at 90-100 ranks.<<
Interesting - I'd have sworn Tremor didn't teach TM, but I tried this in Black Leucros just now and sure enough. It wasn't a great teacher, but it did get me to learning from clear. (Maybe it's better on things with less reflex?)
Learn something new every day.
Interesting - I'd have sworn Tremor didn't teach TM, but I tried this in Black Leucros just now and sure enough. It wasn't a great teacher, but it did get me to learning from clear. (Maybe it's better on things with less reflex?)
Learn something new every day.
SINARV
TM suggestion: Overkill
03/27/2004 09:55 AM CST
The bottom line is that TM needs to be easier to learn. As it is, it has suffered a huge downtweak already -- when experience was changed into being damage-dependent, and the ability to finely target for more experience was removed.
Warrior Mages are now facing another serious downtweak in Targeted Magic, with the impending neutering of the most effective TM teachers, FS and GZ (I'm not forgetting CL). As the only guild with a TM requirement, and one of only two guilds that can learn it reasonably, these changes to TM learning, past and future, will impact us the most.
Since Talian and Valdrik are talking about looking into alternative ways to potentially improve TM learning, I thought it would be appropriate to post my own suggestion: overkill.
What overkill would do is award exponential bonus experience based on how big a percentage of a creature's vitality was damaged in the spell. from 1% to 100% of the creature's vitality, experience would be awarded as normal, from 1% to 100% of the total "bits" of experience available from that creature. Beyond 100% vitality damage, however, the square of the percentage would be applied to the experience gain as a bonus.
% of vitality damage done by a single spell: XP multiplier
50%: 50%
100%: 100%
150%: 225%
200%: 400%
250%: 625%
300%: 900%
350%: 1225%
400%: 1600%
What does this do? First, it gives a distinct benefit to casting spells with much more mana. Casting one spell that deals damage equal to 4x the total vitality of the target would provide twice as much experience as casting two spells each dealing damage equal to 2x the total vitality of the target. Additionally, with the bonus a caster working at level might even be able to lock TM with a single cast of a very high damaging spell (that deals damage equal to 300% or more of the target's total vitality).
Second, it wouldn't affect the learning caps of creatures at all. While it might extend the viable hunting window of creatures as they slow down TM teaching, once they teach zero experience they would still not teach anything, regardless of the damage of the spell.
While this is a drastic measure, the ability to learn TM effectively and efficiently is a concern to just about every Warrior Mage. We've been looking for ways to make it more lucrative to use stronger spells while training. We're going to need a way to increase our TM learning when our best spells for the job get nerfed. This proposal satisfies both of these conditions.
~Vraniss~
Warrior Mages are now facing another serious downtweak in Targeted Magic, with the impending neutering of the most effective TM teachers, FS and GZ (I'm not forgetting CL). As the only guild with a TM requirement, and one of only two guilds that can learn it reasonably, these changes to TM learning, past and future, will impact us the most.
Since Talian and Valdrik are talking about looking into alternative ways to potentially improve TM learning, I thought it would be appropriate to post my own suggestion: overkill.
What overkill would do is award exponential bonus experience based on how big a percentage of a creature's vitality was damaged in the spell. from 1% to 100% of the creature's vitality, experience would be awarded as normal, from 1% to 100% of the total "bits" of experience available from that creature. Beyond 100% vitality damage, however, the square of the percentage would be applied to the experience gain as a bonus.
% of vitality damage done by a single spell: XP multiplier
50%: 50%
100%: 100%
150%: 225%
200%: 400%
250%: 625%
300%: 900%
350%: 1225%
400%: 1600%
What does this do? First, it gives a distinct benefit to casting spells with much more mana. Casting one spell that deals damage equal to 4x the total vitality of the target would provide twice as much experience as casting two spells each dealing damage equal to 2x the total vitality of the target. Additionally, with the bonus a caster working at level might even be able to lock TM with a single cast of a very high damaging spell (that deals damage equal to 300% or more of the target's total vitality).
Second, it wouldn't affect the learning caps of creatures at all. While it might extend the viable hunting window of creatures as they slow down TM teaching, once they teach zero experience they would still not teach anything, regardless of the damage of the spell.
While this is a drastic measure, the ability to learn TM effectively and efficiently is a concern to just about every Warrior Mage. We've been looking for ways to make it more lucrative to use stronger spells while training. We're going to need a way to increase our TM learning when our best spells for the job get nerfed. This proposal satisfies both of these conditions.
~Vraniss~
FONTAINED2
Re: TM
03/27/2004 01:18 PM CST
<<Do you really want your spells to be based on things we can't train as easily as magic?>>
I don't think that's the point so much as the basic unfairness that we (the masters of offensive magic) have to train in order for our magic to be as effective as the spells of magical hobbyists.
Imagine for a moment that barbarians were the only ones who could gain weapon skill. That's their niche, no one else even had the skills -- the justification would be they can become as good at it as they choose to be. But in order to be fair and balanced no one else has skill checks in their mundane weapon attacks, only stat checks. That's essentially what we're looking at -- yes, we have the skill but no one else needs the skill. They all get what we work for just by circling and training their stats.
Now before everyone starts crying GVG, remember no one was talking about this until they decided our targeted spells were overpowered and needed to be fixed. But dagnabbit, when we get the worst of both worlds, needing to train a special skill to be effective and STILL get nerfed, there's probably going to be some complaining.
Gizella
I don't think that's the point so much as the basic unfairness that we (the masters of offensive magic) have to train in order for our magic to be as effective as the spells of magical hobbyists.
Imagine for a moment that barbarians were the only ones who could gain weapon skill. That's their niche, no one else even had the skills -- the justification would be they can become as good at it as they choose to be. But in order to be fair and balanced no one else has skill checks in their mundane weapon attacks, only stat checks. That's essentially what we're looking at -- yes, we have the skill but no one else needs the skill. They all get what we work for just by circling and training their stats.
Now before everyone starts crying GVG, remember no one was talking about this until they decided our targeted spells were overpowered and needed to be fixed. But dagnabbit, when we get the worst of both worlds, needing to train a special skill to be effective and STILL get nerfed, there's probably going to be some complaining.
Gizella
STEELDREAMER
Re: TM
03/27/2004 02:30 PM CST
>>and the ability to finely target for more experience was removed.<<
Just a note...while the written in bonus to learning was removed, this is still a pretty effective way to train if you're not using spells that destroy you opponent in a single cast. The repeated damage caused by stacking the damage in one place will lead to some impressive damage, and thus better learning. It's not the same, but you can still finely target for extra experience.
The mind of a warrior is like a mirror in that it has no commitment to any outcome and is free to let form and purpose result on the spot, according to the situation.
-Yagyu Munenori
Just a note...while the written in bonus to learning was removed, this is still a pretty effective way to train if you're not using spells that destroy you opponent in a single cast. The repeated damage caused by stacking the damage in one place will lead to some impressive damage, and thus better learning. It's not the same, but you can still finely target for extra experience.
The mind of a warrior is like a mirror in that it has no commitment to any outcome and is free to let form and purpose result on the spot, according to the situation.
-Yagyu Munenori
AUFERO
Re: TM
04/05/2004 08:52 PM CDT
>>I don't think that's the point so much as the basic unfairness that we (the masters of offensive magic) have to train in order for our magic to be as effective as the spells of magical hobbyists.<<
We don't. You're exaggerating the untrained power of the spells in question by quite a bit - it takes a lot of training magic (a tert skillset, albeit possibly the easiest tert skillset to train) to cram enough mana into Smite Foe or Branch Break to make them as effective for a Paladin or Ranger as Lightning Bolt or Aether Lash (our equivalent second tier spells) are for us.
In fact, I'd be amazed if either of them is ever quite as effective as Aether Lash - Smite Foe simply doesn't do that much damage, and Branch Break is only useable in a limited set of areas.
We don't. You're exaggerating the untrained power of the spells in question by quite a bit - it takes a lot of training magic (a tert skillset, albeit possibly the easiest tert skillset to train) to cram enough mana into Smite Foe or Branch Break to make them as effective for a Paladin or Ranger as Lightning Bolt or Aether Lash (our equivalent second tier spells) are for us.
In fact, I'd be amazed if either of them is ever quite as effective as Aether Lash - Smite Foe simply doesn't do that much damage, and Branch Break is only useable in a limited set of areas.
SCHLOTTD
Re: TM
04/06/2004 12:30 PM CDT
>>Ranger. Bard. Can bards learn TM? Could be wrong on bard but ranger for sure.<<
Speaking as a bard, bards neither use TM in nor learn TM from enchantes. On the other hand, since bards use elemental to power their enchantes, they have no danger of blowing off their arms while casting WM spells. I've gotten around 60 TM ranks, almost entirely from FS scrolls and runes.
Meigs
Speaking as a bard, bards neither use TM in nor learn TM from enchantes. On the other hand, since bards use elemental to power their enchantes, they have no danger of blowing off their arms while casting WM spells. I've gotten around 60 TM ranks, almost entirely from FS scrolls and runes.
Meigs
LINKZY
Re: TM
04/06/2004 08:31 PM CDT
<<Smite Foe simply doesn't do that much damage>>
LOL alright man... if you say so....
LOL alright man... if you say so....
SAXGUY
TM training
04/09/2004 08:21 PM CDT
My prime WM grew up in a different age. Not sure how to do this now.
I got some great advice about training TM with GZ at beginning ranks. That worked great. It's not working though at 80 ranks. Hunting Caiman puts my target at thoughtful to pondering. What I do is prep gz, feint, targ, draw, pathway focus damage, harn 3, harn 3, cast, pathway stop, prep gz, targ, slice, pathway focus damage, harn 3, harn 3, cast, pathway stop, chop.
Would you mind sharing some of your ways of learning TM? Should I be prepping at higher mana or harnessing more? Should I be using a different spell now? What do you recommend I try? Thanks
I got some great advice about training TM with GZ at beginning ranks. That worked great. It's not working though at 80 ranks. Hunting Caiman puts my target at thoughtful to pondering. What I do is prep gz, feint, targ, draw, pathway focus damage, harn 3, harn 3, cast, pathway stop, prep gz, targ, slice, pathway focus damage, harn 3, harn 3, cast, pathway stop, chop.
Would you mind sharing some of your ways of learning TM? Should I be prepping at higher mana or harnessing more? Should I be using a different spell now? What do you recommend I try? Thanks
