No, that would be called reinventing the wheel for no reason and nerfing the entire warding system, which I'm not asking for and no other profession would thank us for. I'm not looking to break things more in order to try to achieve a fix for the hole that wizards have due to the removal of our band-aids. AIMing also doesn't require anything but skill, while achieving the post-cap instant kill for a pure requires much more experience to offset it. It's a more reliable result but with much more training cost and mana upkeep.

I think this proposed "solution" is unnecessarily complex and OP as AIMing warding spells, especially pre-cap means the power ceiling is achieved much, much earlier than any other profession.

I also don't believe any Dev team is going to go out and re-design and re-balance every single spell in the game just so this can happen, nor would I want them to take on a project on such a grand scale that we'll probably never see development on anything else in GemStone IV again and would also end up as a nerf to every pure and semi profession. So just no thanks.

>And no to single target 950.

To be accurate, he said no to this at the time of release, with the later clarification that it would require testing and balancing. Also, I understand that there would need to be a change such that one cannot use mass spells with a single target 950 with no cooldown. Things get revisited, so I suggest we do not close off the discussion.

>> 514 is a situational spell (at best), even with lots of lore to a point you can get POUND to trigger 50% of the time.

Pulling this back into the core thread.

I hope I didn't cast anything awry when I reffed 506 & 514 - I might even have been in error. I was referring to Haste / Haste II (514? 516? Ah, age is a wondrous thing!)

Stone Fist is its own animal, and deserves its own look. However, when it comes to "Single Target High Kill Ratio Challenge" discussions, since it isn't in the Wizard Circle (it's a major circle spell), it isn't too likely ever to be viewed for that purpose. Still damn well worth the rooting, though.

Even with the rooting needing to be revisited because of 512 - which I also agree with.

Doug

Following Robert's suggestion, here's another possibility. The concept could possibly be extended to CS spells, as well - but at the outset I'm targeting wizard bolts.

At 50 ranks of appropriate Elemental Lore - The wizard's bolt is cast with a Truespell effect. The Truespell effect negates 50% of the target's ability to evade / block / parry, and grants a D70 roll for determination (31 to 100, with floor being 31).

At 100 ranks of appropriate Elemental Lore - Truespell effect is enhanced - negating 60% of the target's ability to evade / block / parry, and grants a D60 roll for determination (41 to 100, with floor being 41).

At 150 ranks of appropriate Elemental Lore - Truespell effect is further enhanced - negating 70% of the target's ability to evade / block / parry, and grants a D50 roll for determination (51 to 100, with floor being 51). In addition, multi-bolt capabilities are unlocked, allowing the wizard to cast [#] <target> for up to 3 bolts. Mana for the second bolt will cost an additional 150%, and mana for the third bolt will cost an additional 200%.

When devoted to a specific Elemental Lore (200 ranks) - the Truespell effect negates 90% of the target's ability to evade / block / parry, and grants a D40 roll for determination (61 to 100, with the floor being 61). In addition, multi-bolt capabilities are extended for a fourth and a fifth bolt. Mana for the fourth bolt will cost an additional 300%, and for the fifth bolt an additional 500%.

Each bolt gets a separate strike determination, increasing the chances of a fatal crit result.

For the generalist (50's in all lores), all bolt spells will get the base Truehand result.

For the bifurcator with 50 skill enhanced, at least one of the Lores will grant extra bolt capability.

For the specialist - the big win, maximum Truespell and the ability to smother a creature in an element. I'm sure Drumpel always wanted to bury a creature under rubble and this way it can be done! But, for that boulder spell - 5 bolts is going to cost 10 + 15 + 20 + 30 + 50 (or 125) mana. So maybe only 4, or 3 would be enough? Choices, choices!

These numbers may need to be tweaked a bit - and it is entirely possible that it is a bit too powerful so it may need to get toned down a bit. But by increasing the AS / DS delta (less EBP and loss of corresponding EBP DS) we ensure more rank 9 crits, and by throwing more bolts into the fray, we increase the possibility of the rank 9 crit actually being a rank 9 crit, and striking a vital area.

Alternative - at the thresholds mentioned above, each crit is resolved twice (50 ranks) / thrice (100 ranks) / four times (150 ranks) / five times (200 ranks) with the highest crit threshold / result pertaining.

Alternative - at thresholds 150 and 200 only - grant an extra resolution of crit results (a double crit / triple crit).

Alternative - at the thresholds mentioned above, 5% change to the likelihood of hitting the eyes / head / neck / chest with the spell crit result (up to 25% change in chance to strike a vital area).

Mix and match to suit!

Doug

Locking the lores into the unlock would be totally useless and less effective than any of 950 or 515 for a lesser result. Three casts is also nowhere near sufficient to guarantee a kill with bolts.

>> and less effective

Perhaps - but then, since this is a 'well post cap' problem (still fuzzy on where that is), and we're not worried about 'matching' efficiencies until then, it'll probably be just fine to 'lock the unlocks' in lores. Now, if you tell me this disparity that you're championing happens at 1.5x cap, we have something we can model and see how it shakes out. Since 1.5x isn't 'well past' cap in my view, I'm suspecting you're well north of that. But we'll see.

In the meantime, anything that increases lores' utility and utilization rate is an excellent thing and I would welcome it.

Doug

>In the meantime, anything that increases lores' utility and utilization rate is an excellent thing and I would welcome it.

I don't see using unlocks for the single target kill solution as anything but boxing us into the same mediocrity we're accustomed to with elemental lores. Note that 950 does not restrict one from using any type of spell, provided you can already access it.

Similarly, 240 also does not box a spiritual pure into using only a single type of spell as a solution. I would expect the similar level of flexibility with respect to offensive spells allowed or equivalent access to something that works on all types of creatures, regardless of elemental immunity, by enabling us to choose.

As the elemental lores have been split into "functions" rather than true elements, I expect the single target solution to also utilize the heavy fire/earth offensive route as 950 does.

Be careful what you ask for. Just remember that creatures get this stuff as well. And they seem to train lores a lot more than we do. For level 100 creatures everyone would lose any chance to EBP a creatures bolt spells (I think creatures do .5x ranks of lores).

http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif

>>that 950 does not restrict

I understand 950 type spell is your chosen preference. It isn't mine, for a couple of reasons, so you won't see that from me, just FYI.

>>Similarly, 240 also does not box a spiritual pure into using only a single type of spell as a solution.

Nor does this. 240 only re-casts exactly the same spell chosen. This suggestion only casts the same additional bolts as the spell chosen. I am quite sure I said the idea could be extended to CS spells, but I chose to focus on bolt spells first. I had my reason.

>>I expect the single target solution to also utilize the heavy fire/earth offensive route as 950 does.

And I would expect it, as well, if the implemented solution were to use the 950 premise. Which - in case it wasn't clear above - I am not a fan of.

>> the capped damage on a single bolt.

I don't know that I've ever experienced this. It's possible I simply haven't experienced it or haven't read about it. I do seem to recall Estild suggesting 502 had one, but that many spells don't. What do we know about this bolt damage cap that I'm missing?

Doug

>If the Single Target High Kill Ratio becomes a reality through some mechanism, you can bet the creatures will get it, too.

This is a false assumption. Creatures don't use 240, nor do they use aimed shots to the same effect as PCs do who use melee or ranged combat. Fortunately for players, they are not quite that intelligent!

>Which - in case it wasn't clear above - I am not a fan of.

We get this, too. But in case it wasn't clear, this is the post-cap, single target instant kill thread. I'm not here to settle for less than any other pure has to in terms of single target/single cast lethality as a post-cap option. You don't have to use it, if it's not the style of hunting you prefer, but I'll never go along with continuing to settle for mediocrity. Wizards aim too low. Or perhaps just have no clue what spiritualists or semis/squares enjoy in terms of post-cap killing power.

>> I'd like to see more critters that use 240. And 950.

Only if they have a limited amount of mana to cast spells with.

-- Robert

>> Seriously, who cares how much mana a creature has - if he's never going to get to use it because the character casts first?

I get cast at pretty regularly. Maybe I'm doing it wrong? :p

-- Robert

All right - then cast away! :-)

Thanks for explaining - I'll probably do some testing around critter mana when I get back.

-- Robert

>And yes - I'd like to see 240 used by creatures, as well. That's a great idea - hell creatures are already sharing the wizard spell 917, but - as long as 240's been out, we haven't had a creature use it? Blaspheme!

I don't believe in adding creature nerfs. In any case, creatures never use boosters, so this comparison isn't the same at all. In that case, you'd see creatures using 515 or 117 and then your hunt would really be done when you walk into a swarm. In contrast, every single target individual spell is used by creatures, from 917 to 317, so this is another reason I disagree with trying to make the solution into a single spell rather than a limited duration booster.

>>creatures never use boosters

As with most generalized absolutes, this one is inaccurate.

>>then your hunt would really be done when you walk into a swarm

As is this one - the Elf withstands most swarms as though they be a gentle summer rain. Briefly, true. But still. . .

>> bandits were rubbing blue crystals

I'd be willing to grant the latitude of magic items versus spells in this discussion, if spells (and mirrored 'innate abilities') weren't used at nearly all levels across the board.

Good stuff - and should help quell any concerns about wizards becoming too powerful.

Doug

>>Which for a wizard would be:

So a shade over 16M (I added 1x PT, 40 ranks climb / swim / perception - and I added 2x Spell Aim, because. . . wizards?) I don't normally think of 2x cap as 'well past', but it's a starting point! Not discussing the MIU / AS thing - this serves as a floor for me. Now to start poking around on the spiritual side for the 'equivalent'.

>>I want to take that from them too.

Heh. Greedy!

>>we're not in any danger of this happening

We could move the time table up appreciably. Not too far off from where war-wizards landed with the whole haste discussion, actually. It's all about attitude. And confidence. And willingness.

Yeah, maybe you're right. 5 to 100 years. ;/

Doug

All fair. A rapid (and potentially error prone) survey of other professions shows the order to be (surprise, surprise):

empath > savant (heh) > [wizard | cleric] > sorcerer

Something to keep in mind, as we work through the STHKR challenge - 240 presently increases AS / CS by the same amount, while 950 (and one must presume all spells going forward) using the more current standard ratio of 3 CS to 5 AS. That creates a bit of the ceiling challenge by itself, and will be difficult to justify (most likely) here.

Something else I've been considering, but haven't done well enough yet - what IS the DF for a CS spell? Or differently, how do you calculate the crit rank from the result. I'm researching this myself now but if someone knows the answer, I'd love to hear it! I suspect that will play a role in the differentiation, as well.

Always something to learn. . .

Doug

>>This isn't correct.

I always like to learn! It's correct based on what Methais laid down as his view of well post cap. Since I'm asking, and I don't like my current 3x 4x 5x perspective, I simply used that. With what Methais said, 14M for empath, 14.5M for savant, 16M for wizard, 16.5M for cleric (but 15.8M without SA), and 16.5M for sorcerer (rounded). While I don't consider that 'well post cap' myself - I'm not trying to invalidate his perspective, I'm trying to understand it. And since I don't like mine, his might work for me!

But there's all kinds of variations to training plans, unique requirements and personal perspective that might fudge those numbers. So share! Tell me how you would define well post cap. Let's see how that picture changes from what you consider relevant. Again, I'm just looking at it as multiples of base cap exp, and that isn't helping me understand. I might even like yours better than Methais', but so far he's the only game in town.

>>There's no ceiling challenge

I'm going to suspect I didn't make my point clear. You have declared a power ceiling that differs between wizards and other pures - for a number of reasons. I said that the delta of 5 AS / 5 CS (240) to 5 AS / 3 CS (950) is something challenging to consider, that affects the ceiling discussion ('a bit of the ceiling challenge by itself').

Doug

>Tell me how you would define well post cap.

In all of our discussions here discussing well post-cap goals, I personally am talking about maximized pure magical offense. So at a minimum, being able to 3x spells, 3x HP, 2x lores, 2x mana controls. Survival and tertiary skills are are irrelevant here.