Why is CS/TD fixed at 3 points per level when trainable skill bonus is variable? I understand the spell circle bonus added onto the base CS has a similar sort of diminishing return, but it seems like it'd be more consistent to have CS/TD bonus taper off and have the circle bonus be a flat +1 per rank. Something like this:
CS/TD:
Level 1-10: +5 bonus per level
Level 11-20: +4 bonus per level
Level 21-30: +3 bonus per level
Level 31-40: +2 bonus per level
Level 41+: +1 bonus per level
AS/DS:
Rank 1-10: +5 bonus per rank
Rank 11-20: +4 bonus per rank
Rank 21-30: +3 bonus per rank
Rank 31-40: +2 bonus per rank
Rank 41+: +1 bonus per rank
Also, why does overtraining a spell circle benefit CS when trainable skills (spell aiming, weapon training) are hard capped? I like players having more options but it doesn't seem right to allow one but not the other.
KANDOR
RATHBONER
Re: CS/TD design
06/17/2016 12:46 PM CDT
The game is based around 3 per level. AS as well as CS. (e.g. a square trains 2x weapon and 2x CMan to get an extra 3 AS per level)
TRIPLEGAME226
Re: CS/TD design
06/18/2016 02:44 PM CDT
> The game is based around 3 per level. AS as well as CS. (e.g. a square trains 2x weapon and 2x CMan to get an extra 3 AS per level)
I wish I gained 3 AS per level. :(
~ Methais
I wish I gained 3 AS per level. :(
~ Methais
KRAKII
Re: CS/TD design
06/21/2016 09:11 AM CDT
It's a great question, Kandor.
And it's why--during the deICE, and again during the GS3/GS4 conversion--I was suggesting that we take the "compare level" component totally OUT of the warding spell check, and make it a trainable skill. (Some professions could single, some could double.) Decide which professions are meant to double in warding-type spells, which are meant to double in bolt-type spells, and which are meant to double in weapons. Decide which Semi's are meant to overlap which categories. Allow the players to go crazy training up their professions to do whichever of the three attack skills they wanted.
(And did I mention that this whole "free attack/defense per level" crap would be removed?)
.
Didn't happen either time, but I hold out hope for the next big update....
And it's why--during the deICE, and again during the GS3/GS4 conversion--I was suggesting that we take the "compare level" component totally OUT of the warding spell check, and make it a trainable skill. (Some professions could single, some could double.) Decide which professions are meant to double in warding-type spells, which are meant to double in bolt-type spells, and which are meant to double in weapons. Decide which Semi's are meant to overlap which categories. Allow the players to go crazy training up their professions to do whichever of the three attack skills they wanted.
(And did I mention that this whole "free attack/defense per level" crap would be removed?)
.
Didn't happen either time, but I hold out hope for the next big update....
KANDOR
Re: CS/TD design
06/21/2016 11:40 AM CDT
I'm not certain how the +3 per level thing is intended for CS. If a sorcerer trains for 20 levels and trains twice in the 700 circle each level, he'd end up with something like 80 CS in that circle. That's 4 per level, not 3, and people that triple can effectively have a bit higher. Channeling nets even greater benefit.
Methais noted that spell aiming has no parallel to CM to grant an extra +1 per level for bolt AS. It's been pointed out a number of times in the wizard folders that warding spells aren't subject to EBP, yet most of them are inferior to modern warding attack spells. This is for various reasons, but one of the most obvious is that they only hit one crit location at a time. Except for the really basic spells, warding spells hit many places at once with a 3 sec cast RT. Mstrike partly balances this for open attacks with a heftier RT, ambush helps solve it for aimed attacks at a 1-3 sec penalty, bolts don't have much besides high DF and now a slight channeling bonus. (I'm trying to condense a lot of stuff into a couple sentences, so please correct the things I'm missing.) The current training design puts no upper limit on overtraining to increase casting strength for warding spells, but uses a hard cap on weapons and bolt spells. I propose allowing weapon skills and spell aiming to be overtrained as a solution to this. It will need some rebalancing but I don't think it's as bad as it first appears.
I also like Krakii's idea for a trainable skill that boosts casting strength (CS or AS - spell aiming could be an analog to ambush and bolt DFs reduced for it). Since it involves adding a skill it's not as easy to implement, and it would need balancing some of the lore costs and other costs for casters. However, it would give all casting classes the option to raise or not raise their offensive strength. Weapon users and bolt casters have had this "option" since the game started. Or, if that option doesn't make sense, make AS +3 per level and find another use for spell aiming and the weapon skills. I don't think the latter solution is very clever but it achieves a similar goal.
Methais noted that spell aiming has no parallel to CM to grant an extra +1 per level for bolt AS. It's been pointed out a number of times in the wizard folders that warding spells aren't subject to EBP, yet most of them are inferior to modern warding attack spells. This is for various reasons, but one of the most obvious is that they only hit one crit location at a time. Except for the really basic spells, warding spells hit many places at once with a 3 sec cast RT. Mstrike partly balances this for open attacks with a heftier RT, ambush helps solve it for aimed attacks at a 1-3 sec penalty, bolts don't have much besides high DF and now a slight channeling bonus. (I'm trying to condense a lot of stuff into a couple sentences, so please correct the things I'm missing.) The current training design puts no upper limit on overtraining to increase casting strength for warding spells, but uses a hard cap on weapons and bolt spells. I propose allowing weapon skills and spell aiming to be overtrained as a solution to this. It will need some rebalancing but I don't think it's as bad as it first appears.
I also like Krakii's idea for a trainable skill that boosts casting strength (CS or AS - spell aiming could be an analog to ambush and bolt DFs reduced for it). Since it involves adding a skill it's not as easy to implement, and it would need balancing some of the lore costs and other costs for casters. However, it would give all casting classes the option to raise or not raise their offensive strength. Weapon users and bolt casters have had this "option" since the game started. Or, if that option doesn't make sense, make AS +3 per level and find another use for spell aiming and the weapon skills. I don't think the latter solution is very clever but it achieves a similar goal.
PFLATS
Re: CS/TD design
06/21/2016 12:26 PM CDT
If you train a skill for CS, should you also have to train a skill for TD? Is it the same skill?
As it stands, 1 level in Gemstone is not just a number; it represents a given amount of physical, martial, and magical proficiency, earned the hard way. A level 100 warrior is better at controlling and resisting magic than a level 5 Hobgoblin Shaman, even though he might have no ranks in a single magical skill. A level 59 massive black boar - the highest level mundane enemy I could think of - resist magic far better than a level 10 sorcerer that's 3x spells.
Similarly, a level 100 sorcerer will never get tagged by a level 5 grimswarm orc warrior's charge, but that same boar will gore the heck out of the most agile rogue or warrior.
Skills represent what your character intentionally works on, while levels represent callouses and instincts.
As it stands, 1 level in Gemstone is not just a number; it represents a given amount of physical, martial, and magical proficiency, earned the hard way. A level 100 warrior is better at controlling and resisting magic than a level 5 Hobgoblin Shaman, even though he might have no ranks in a single magical skill. A level 59 massive black boar - the highest level mundane enemy I could think of - resist magic far better than a level 10 sorcerer that's 3x spells.
Similarly, a level 100 sorcerer will never get tagged by a level 5 grimswarm orc warrior's charge, but that same boar will gore the heck out of the most agile rogue or warrior.
Skills represent what your character intentionally works on, while levels represent callouses and instincts.
RATHBONER
Re: CS/TD design
06/21/2016 12:41 PM CDT
>Methais noted that spell aiming has no parallel to CM to grant an extra +1 per level for bolt AS.
Its called spell training rather than CM, but its there.
Its called spell training rather than CM, but its there.
DOUG
Re: CS/TD design
06/21/2016 01:17 PM CDT
>>The current training design puts no upper limit on overtraining to increase casting strength for warding spells,
I don't agree. I'm aware that we're talking apples and oranges here, and - anyone can change my perspective! In fact, it would be simple, really. Show me a character that has trained that all powerful unlimited 304th spell rank, and poof, mind blown.
Doug
I don't agree. I'm aware that we're talking apples and oranges here, and - anyone can change my perspective! In fact, it would be simple, really. Show me a character that has trained that all powerful unlimited 304th spell rank, and poof, mind blown.
Doug
KANDOR
Re: CS/TD design
06/21/2016 06:22 PM CDT
PFLATS:
>If you train a skill for CS, should you also have to train a skill for TD? Is it the same skill?
Certainly not, but TD should work through a trainable skill. Any suggestions? Compare how DS and TD increase. As I understand it, DS comes from EBP, each of which relates to trained skills and stat bonuses. DS is trained up while TD is +3 per level. Since there are fewer skills related to magical defense, perhaps using a sort of redux/runestaff formula would work - the sum of a few different skills.
>Skills represent what your character intentionally works on, while levels represent callouses and instincts.
I agree with the principle, but most of the other stats PCs get don't work this way. Critters are different, and don't have trainable skills. Most of the traits of a massive black boar has are things that are trained by PCs, either as stats or skills - physical fitness, intuition, perception, even the ability to charge. Also, though massive black boars seem mundane, they still aren't normal animals -- as I understand it they are supposed to be a sort of supernatural product of the Blighted Forest and environs.
RATHBONER:
>Its called spell training rather than CM, but its there.
I wasn't aware spell research raised bolt AS. If that's true I stand corrected.
DOUG:
>>The current training design puts no upper limit on overtraining to increase casting strength for warding spells,
>
>I don't agree. I'm aware that we're talking apples and oranges here, and - anyone can change my perspective! In fact, it would be simple, really. Show me a character that has trained that all powerful unlimited 304th spell rank, and poof, mind blown.
Okay, I'm not saying it's the most desirable route, just that it's POSSIBLE the way it's designed to put all your points into it. It's not possible to do that with AS. I think there is a good system of diminishing returns built into overtraining spell research for CS, and there are a lot of other, more useful things to train. I think a weapon or bolt spell user should both have the option to do the same, assuming a similar system of diminishing returns. Training point costs are all over the board so it'd need some math to balance it out.
>If you train a skill for CS, should you also have to train a skill for TD? Is it the same skill?
Certainly not, but TD should work through a trainable skill. Any suggestions? Compare how DS and TD increase. As I understand it, DS comes from EBP, each of which relates to trained skills and stat bonuses. DS is trained up while TD is +3 per level. Since there are fewer skills related to magical defense, perhaps using a sort of redux/runestaff formula would work - the sum of a few different skills.
>Skills represent what your character intentionally works on, while levels represent callouses and instincts.
I agree with the principle, but most of the other stats PCs get don't work this way. Critters are different, and don't have trainable skills. Most of the traits of a massive black boar has are things that are trained by PCs, either as stats or skills - physical fitness, intuition, perception, even the ability to charge. Also, though massive black boars seem mundane, they still aren't normal animals -- as I understand it they are supposed to be a sort of supernatural product of the Blighted Forest and environs.
RATHBONER:
>Its called spell training rather than CM, but its there.
I wasn't aware spell research raised bolt AS. If that's true I stand corrected.
DOUG:
>>The current training design puts no upper limit on overtraining to increase casting strength for warding spells,
>
>I don't agree. I'm aware that we're talking apples and oranges here, and - anyone can change my perspective! In fact, it would be simple, really. Show me a character that has trained that all powerful unlimited 304th spell rank, and poof, mind blown.
Okay, I'm not saying it's the most desirable route, just that it's POSSIBLE the way it's designed to put all your points into it. It's not possible to do that with AS. I think there is a good system of diminishing returns built into overtraining spell research for CS, and there are a lot of other, more useful things to train. I think a weapon or bolt spell user should both have the option to do the same, assuming a similar system of diminishing returns. Training point costs are all over the board so it'd need some math to balance it out.
PFLATS
Re: CS/TD design
06/21/2016 09:15 PM CDT
>I wasn't aware spell research raised bolt AS. If that's true I stand corrected.
Every pure has access to a spell that gives +1 bolt AS for every 2 spell ranks, just like CM. (425/1130/307)
>Compare how DS and TD increase. As I understand it, DS comes from EBP, each of which relates to trained skills and stat bonuses. DS is trained up while TD is +3 per level.
DS is a weird case that I intentionally avoided; it's trained up for semis and squares, but pures get their runestaff parry DS for free.
Every pure has access to a spell that gives +1 bolt AS for every 2 spell ranks, just like CM. (425/1130/307)
>Compare how DS and TD increase. As I understand it, DS comes from EBP, each of which relates to trained skills and stat bonuses. DS is trained up while TD is +3 per level.
DS is a weird case that I intentionally avoided; it's trained up for semis and squares, but pures get their runestaff parry DS for free.
DOUG
Re: CS/TD design
06/21/2016 09:57 PM CDT
>>Okay, I'm not saying it's the most desirable route
Ahh, we're much closer in alignment than I thought based on the earlier comment. I think PFLATS covers it fairly well in that the bolt magic system does in fact fairly closely follow the 'other' AS system (CM ranks versus spell ranks for select spells). Gaps are further closed by surge spell types (215, 515) which can add handily to AS.
I think my perspective is that the AS situation isn't untenable. What makes a fairly large difference is the ability to call your shot, or no. AMBUSH versus. . . um, how to say this kindly. . . no targeting Spell Aiming is what I'ma roll with, for now.
That called shot makes a world of difference. And bolt users have no ability to realize that world of difference. It's entirely possible that bolt AS isn't quite as high as weapon AS. But then, bolt defense frequently isn't the same as physical DS. But the ability to call a shot? Priceless.
That, however, strays a bit from the overall thread subject - CS / TD. I'm not sure how best to say this part either, but - no matter the rule, the player is likely to find that optimum zone to have an incredible CS and be able to still play the character. AS may not be quite as complex in the calculations - but then it also is a bit more handy in the utility side of the equation. Tradeoffs, I guess. But, no matter - 3 TD per level versus a 3.6 CS per level min / max, or change it up to a trained skill (removing training points and further limiting utility), we'll likely end up fairly close (+ or - 15 CS / to TD perhaps?) to where we are today. At least, I think?
Doug
Ahh, we're much closer in alignment than I thought based on the earlier comment. I think PFLATS covers it fairly well in that the bolt magic system does in fact fairly closely follow the 'other' AS system (CM ranks versus spell ranks for select spells). Gaps are further closed by surge spell types (215, 515) which can add handily to AS.
I think my perspective is that the AS situation isn't untenable. What makes a fairly large difference is the ability to call your shot, or no. AMBUSH versus. . . um, how to say this kindly. . . no targeting Spell Aiming is what I'ma roll with, for now.
That called shot makes a world of difference. And bolt users have no ability to realize that world of difference. It's entirely possible that bolt AS isn't quite as high as weapon AS. But then, bolt defense frequently isn't the same as physical DS. But the ability to call a shot? Priceless.
That, however, strays a bit from the overall thread subject - CS / TD. I'm not sure how best to say this part either, but - no matter the rule, the player is likely to find that optimum zone to have an incredible CS and be able to still play the character. AS may not be quite as complex in the calculations - but then it also is a bit more handy in the utility side of the equation. Tradeoffs, I guess. But, no matter - 3 TD per level versus a 3.6 CS per level min / max, or change it up to a trained skill (removing training points and further limiting utility), we'll likely end up fairly close (+ or - 15 CS / to TD perhaps?) to where we are today. At least, I think?
Doug
RATHBONER
Re: CS/TD design
06/22/2016 06:22 AM CDT
>we'll likely end up fairly close (+ or - 15 CS / to TD perhaps?) to where we are today. At least, I think?
At least 30 at high level/post cap. (elementalists somewhat less affected than spiritualists, but the baseline swings (before other rebalancing) would be losing that sort of CS in the 300s and gaining that sort of CS in the 100s and 200s for a cleric). Semis would require a design decision that could throw them 50 either way (before other rebalancing).
>But the ability to call a shot? Priceless.
Would you give up 60% of your DF and 30% of your DS for that though? Thats the sort of trade off between using aimed to crit kill and unaimed damage to bleed it out styles of weaponry.
DOUG
Re: CS/TD design
06/22/2016 09:44 AM CDT
>>Would you give up 60% of your DF and 30% of your DS for that though?
Possibly, possibly. I'm unconvinced on the DS side, but I might be missing something. I know DFs would have to change, yet I don't see how you got to your trade off points. Are you considering speed as the primary reason to move away from higher DF weaponry?
Doug
Possibly, possibly. I'm unconvinced on the DS side, but I might be missing something. I know DFs would have to change, yet I don't see how you got to your trade off points. Are you considering speed as the primary reason to move away from higher DF weaponry?
Doug
