1) Provide a (very high cost) way to restore the recharge lifespan to an item (and extend the idea to scroll life with Infusion (714)). This must be done before an item 'greens'.

2) Alternatively, get rid of 'greening' items, and up the costs of recharging an order of magnitude or two.

3) Create a special potion / process to handle 'non-standard' (merchant recharge) items (Curtis' idea in another thread).

4) Allow the mana pool to be tapped during the recharge process so a single charge can completely fill an item (rather than multiple orb rubs, a single one).

5) Allow the wizard to 'enchant' a very expensive orb gem that will improve various properties or facets of the recharge process (reduce failed rubs, double mana throughput, prevent greening, etc.)

6) Bonus round - allow 517 to be used in the 'binding' process for enchanting for collapsing multiple steps into a single cast.

Doug

>fix it, but don't force us to rely on alchemy QRLHLJKAD#!$(&!!!" That generally leaves me with limited options for distribution of "special potions."

lots of alchemists would be happy to see alchemy used more :) with the guild boost items and Wednesday guild nights, this shouldn't even be an issue anymore. It sucks to have put the effort into the original requirements of alchemy only to have things not released because people complained on the boards. That's not cool.

Of course when things are released via alchemy it ends up requiring some absurd ingredient and once again the time and effort put in doesn't mean much, so yeah, some sort of middle ground should exist.

There seem to be contradictory desires because some seem to want this game to descend into as much tedium as possible, while others enjoy the direction of other profession upgrades that are focused on quality of life. I am especially concerned these days with quality of life for the non-scripting player, particularly when it comes to combat. This is the year 2017 in this text game we're playing, so I personally prefer to see the positive direction of development that other professions largely enjoy vs. nerfing most things for wizards and introducing more tedium as a way of adding "flavor".

>you guys ask for a "special potion."

One guy asked for a special potion. I personally am against potions or excessive spell component requirements of any kind. This is what sorcerers argued against for years with their spells and why Ensorcell was such a positively received spell implementation. That's what many people are referring to when we discuss what we wanted out of bringing Enchant Item up to 2017.

>Feel free to suggest alternatives to those distribution methods.

I disagree with special potions, so I disagree we need alternative distribution methods.

>Nothing should last forever (No perm general distribution rechargables)

We actually can agree on this, because that's what ripping off the band-aid with the change to GS4 entailed. Reversing that would only lead to even more item and power creep, plus dependency on outside spells that would be inevitably balanced into combat as nerfs.

>517 should be useful to all 17+ level mages to some degree

I don't agree. Plenty of spells aren't useful at the time one initially learns them. That's the whole point of gaining experience, and post-cap experience in particular. See 714.

>Recharging items should not be free and should have some costs (beyond just mana) associated with it

I don't disagree with costs, but I disagree with requiring some tedious and rare potion to do it. The bigger problem is that 517 by definition is limited to a much smaller spell selection, generally treasure system generic drops, as it's far rarer to find mage rechargeable spells of other kinds than it is to find any given spell in a scroll collection.

I have no interest in Doug's proposed suggestions 1-5 as again it's spell component heavy, increasing in cost, or goes against GM Viduus' point about item permanence. While I would like #6, I am fairly certain this would be considered OP, and IMO it doesn't solve the many problems that currently exist with Enchant Item. We might be asking too much out of one spell with that ask.

>Allow for a way to take a blank imbeddible and via 420-Magic Item Creation, set the spell into the item using the alchemy potion of the appropriate spell (with minimal charges). This makes all those alchemy potions that each profession can make useful / valuable and broadens the spell availability for 517-Charge Item (which you would use to charge the item once it had been created via the special usage of 420).

We already can 420/325 every spell that's approved, so this would only allow for the inclusion of the few empath potions plus greater access to the few Major Spirit potions. I'm not sure it's worth the trouble just for access to Adrenal Surge on a practical basis.

>Also, adding some additional information into this archaic spell such that it keeps track of the charges added, let's you determine your target cap, etc would be a welcome and wonderful addition (the first point because I have to use a 3rd party script to track this for me today and the second point because items need to have the EXACT same number of charges in order to stack in a player shop).

I'm all for quality of life improvements along these lines.

Can we all agree that...

-Nothing should last forever (No perm general distribution rechargables)

-517 should be useful to all 17+ level mages to some degree

-Recharging items should not be free and should have some costs (beyond just mana) associated with it

I agree with the above as they make sense.

My personal opinion is that 517 requires more hoops to jump through than 925 which doesn't make much sense to me. I'd just like 517 to be a bit more straightforward like 925.

I suggest the following changes:

1. Remove the Orb Gem requirement and be able to use any gem of a specific value; let's up the minimum threshold to say 2,000 silvers plus as even low level characters come across gems of this value. (I don't feel wizards should have to seek out another profession to create special gems for this spell)

2. Reduce the number of casts to prepare the orb. It's just tedious to have to cast 517 over and over at the gem until it is "flickering in color and humming tones of enchantment." I could live with this if it followed a straight forward rule that a 2000 silver gem required 2 casts, a 3000 silver gem required 3 casts, etc. I'd also like to see a straight forward rule that a 2000 silver gem can charge 2 items, a 3000 silver gem can charge 3 items, etc.

3. Reduce the number of rubs with the item requiring charging. To me this is more tedium again. I'd prefer a single rub to max out the number of charges dependent on the value of the gem or allow us to specify the number of charges or use a different command to add 1 charge per use.

As I gaze over the horizon, the wind tugs at my cloak and whispers, "Adventure" in my ear.

AIM: Kaight (Matt) GS4

I have no personal interest in doing anything at all related with Alchemy. (Although I do enjoy selling off the n'ayanad crystals, at 3K+ a pop.)

However, I believe that the system offers a rich diversity of "things it could be possible to do", and by simply adding different ingredients / concocting different recipes / expanding upon those capabilities, it can be turned into something actually desirable.
Many of the resultant trinkets are really quite good, but few people produce enough of them to make them readily available, so they never get used on a regular basis, so there's little demand for them, so nobody produces them. See "tedium" argument.

I also think that adding more things that Alchemy CAN do will make it more desirable for folks to have, leading to more people generating things, leading to them being more regularly available.
To that end, I wouldn't mind if it could produce more of the Arcane trinkets that already exist, but seem to be quite rare random drops.
(Basically, any of the items that generate Arcane spells. I think I have seen ONE of the firestorm thing, one time, ever; and one of the rust particles (?) or whatever it was.
The gold coins happen every so often, but I find a lot more of them in the pawn shop than I do in treasure. Those, by the way, I would pay a pretty penny to pick up from a player-run Alchemy shop. Illoke Mystics have killed me once, severely wounded me once, and massively inconvenienced me [by stripping off Elemental Targeting [once], Elemental Barrior [once], Elemental Defense III [once], and Sonic Runestaff [twice]] several times.)

I totally agree with adding something to Detect Magic/405. I would go so far as to make the grot t'kel potion drinkable, and give it a duration during which any gem the imbiber casts at is able to be determined whether or not it can be an orb. OR just add in an EL:<whatever> requirement, such as what happened with Air Lore already added to the spell. Or hey! You could just add it to the existing Air Lore benefit...

Most likely it's been a decade and a half since I did a Recharging session, but I would have no qualms about using a pre-grot potion in the same manner that a pre-temper potion is done for Enchanting <shrug> I can no longer speak to the ease or difficulty of acquiring orb gems, because as the player of a Bard as well I have what amounts to an embarrassing number of them, and generally make at least one accidentally every night. (Most of which--uncut rubies, pink or blue sapphires, any pearl other than tiny [which start off being orbs]--get sold, because they are below my personal threshold of 8k value, which is the lowest I keep for giving to a Cleric to become a Chrism gem.)

I also completely agree on the tedium involved with actually DOING the charges, though that may be ameliorated somewhat by my Mage now being, ohh, must be a good 3 or 4 levels [heh] higher than the last time I did any Recharging. Just moving the mana around was a giant pain in the tuckus, and usually the orb lasted a lot longer than my mana supply did. (Or maybe I just need to use crappier gems.)
Or maybe a higher-quality gem requires less mana, because you've got a better conduit. Less resistance; like using purer copper in an electrical wire. 2k gem is bare minimum; 3k gem only requires 98% of the mana; 4k gem 96% of the mana, 5k gem 94%, 6k 92%, 7k 90%, 8k 88%, 9k 86%, 10k 84%, 11k 82%, 12k+ 80%.
Between some of the nice rocks in the Summit cubes, and Purification/1004, I've gotten to 11k already. I would imagine that higher level Bards may be able to safely take their stones further still, and there's always gem-cutters.

My only real problem with 517 is that rechargeable items are rare and only hold one spell, while any fresh scroll can be charged and usually have multiple spells.

I think that having both item degradation and the chance for greening can be a bit much. I wouldn't mind seeing one of them go away. Items still wouldn't be permanent were we to lose one of those.

But anyway...



>Can we all agree that...
>-Nothing should last forever (No perm general distribution rechargables)

Sure.

>-517 should be useful to all 17+ level mages to some degree

I'd like to see all spells be useful from the start, but still get better as you level up.

>-Recharging items should not be free and should have some costs (beyond just mana) associated with it

As long as it's kept within reason, sure. I'm not sure what sorcerers spend to charge a scroll but somewhere in that same ball park shouldn't be a problem.

>alchemy

I don't think alchemy or any artisan skill should be a requirement for any profession to use their own skills/spells effectively. Profession skills like this should only have training requirements. At most, a potion being involved should grant a some sort of boost but never required to achieve the same end result. If a potion were required for merchant rechargeable stuff, I wouldn't mind that since we can't normally charge those anyway. If any potions are going to be required, they should come from the wizard guild shop.

And the 405 buffs that were already mentioned.


~ Methais

This is a tangent, but artisan skills like alchemy are more or less DragonRealms skills. Add time-based absorption to them and crank up the cap, add a couple degrees of complexity, and they are nearly identical. Some folks enjoy this system; others don't. There is a degree of realism to it, but it also may involve begging/farming for components and babysitting a script. Improving a skill in DragonRealms often allows you to train a few other skills at the same time, either incidentally or intentionally, so there's a greater perceived reward. And, there's also the IC argument: some characters don't make sense toiling away in a workshop (even wizards).

>I don't think alchemy or any artisan skill should be a requirement for any profession to use their own skills/spells effectively.

Alchemy is a professional guild skill, not artisan

I'll add that not every spell requires lores. 714 doesn't, and I wouldn't want 517 to either. Adding in lores is the first way to making a spell largely inaccessible until well post-cap.

When looking at what wizards largely like about recent spell releases though, see 520 or 917. Lores should be purely a bonus, not a requirement. Also, with a 4-way split, at least 2 lores should be able to substitute for each other for the same function.

I would like blank Rechargeable items a HELL of a lot more if we went back more to our roots in RoleMaster: at 20th level/Lord, spellcasters gain the ability to create items in that list. (With our system, I would probably do it as "50 level spell research in a list", which theoretically someone could do at 23rd level.)
Yes, even the semis, and even the Squares, because they can--sure, 'eventually'--get to that level of knowledge.

Feel free to have it still require a grot, OR make a different potion for each Realm. Want a Hybrid spell? TWO potions (OR make a total of 6 potions, one for each Realm and one for each Hybridization).

But yeah, the point about finding all-list spells on scrolls, and <not that> in items, is a huge one.

.

Don't want your Paladins spitting out those Dauntless and Vigor items on their own? Fine.
Require the cast of Item Creation/420 to be as-is, but then permit the 'imbed' line to work from anyone. Now those pesky Paladins have to find someone to prepare their item for them up front, before doing their Dauntless or Vigor item or whatever.
Or require the creation of an other-Realm spell to eat an orb gem, or whatever.

.

.

Routing back to the discussion of Alchemy, I'm all for it--including creation of beneficial things for the doers of it--so long as I am not required to participate. I know that there are SOME people out there who like it, or who tolerate it, or who just do it because it's there, or whatever. If they want to charge a price for something they've done, that I'm willing to pay, I'm willing to let them enjoy both doing it & spending my silvers. If I don't feel a need for the item, I just won't buy it.
In the same manner that since I don't feel a need for that skill, I just won't do it.

(Likewise with musical instruments, on my Bards. Or Societies, on everyone but the oldest characters who were already in 'em. Or darts. Or Siegery. Or Spirit Beasts. Or Guilds. Or any of the other "train stuff up" progressions that we've had added.)

>Alchemy is a professional guild skill, not artisan

Most guild skills are also improved by repetition, though they use a point system to increase instead of the "ah ha" chance of an artisan skill. They are both closer to DragonRealms than GemStone's concept of a trainable skill, like first aid.

>Alchemy is a professional guild skill, not artisan

I don't think alchemy or any professional guild skill should be a requirement for any profession to use their own skills/spells effectively.

~ Methais

>Can you explain this? I'm currently level 40 and have had no trouble being fully 2x in lore. Now to be fair, I like the concept of lores, so I've prioritized it over stuff like triple training spells, but I feel completely fine and viable in my choice.

You sacrifice a lot of quality of life in hunting via more Harness Power and access to spells before you learn them all by going 2x or even 1x lore pre-cap.

>you are training correctly (meaning intended design) and others are not

Thanks for telling us what the "correct" way to train is. There is no correct way to train, intended design or not. I argue that the intended design for wizards is flawed with the 4 way split and high thresholds requiring more of wizards to get similar levels of effectiveness out of their spells vs. other pures.

Pre-cap, I would choose to train in 3x spells where possible and 1.5x HP before picking up any lores. This is again personal choice, but for most spiritual spells, lores are always a bonus to enhance the effectiveness of spells rather than required for baseline functionality.

<<Pre-cap, I would choose to train in 3x spells where possible and 1.5x HP before picking up any lores. This is again personal choice, but for most spiritual spells, lores are always a bonus to enhance the effectiveness of spells rather than required for baseline functionality.

But there are trade offs there you're choosing to make, which is fine. But you were saying requiring lores makes it inaccessible until post-cap. Basically, do you think multiple training paths should be viable? Unless I'm going to run into some kind of brick wall at some point (which I doubt), I feel completely viable in my choice. You mention 1.5 harness power, that would give me more mana, but I can (and do) utilize my lores effectively to save mana. Tonis bolt + 906 followup is often very effective. Minor Steam is an extremely mana-efficient raw damage spell (the crits are worse, but the spell is an excellent choice vs non-corporal.) I'm currently training to Major Acid, which I expect to be great against bandits. (I even have a MOC rank for it!)

tl;dr- I'm having a lot of fun with lores well before cap. No problem if you don't want them, but I don't think it's fair to call them "inaccessible."

>> What are your expectations for how long an average rechargable should last? Assuming you start with a 40 charge item on the first successful session, how many additional charges do you think is reasonable to push out of it?

Many common items cannot be reasonably brought to 40 charges even at cap today (small statues, quartz orbs, ruby amulets(!)) . So is this a reasonable base assumption for the discussion or are we assuming that charge item 2.0 would make allowances for this?

>> What are your expectations for baseline usefulness? Obviously the value in things like scroll infusion and charge item come in being able to charge up spells you don't actually know, but what are the expectations for tapping into those abilities? Should it be limited to extreme post cap, level 17s, somewhere in the center? It would probably be helpful to list these expectations as something along the lines of...

I think the current system works pretty well in this regard. More training allows for more charges to be added. Scaling the number of charges that can be added based on the power of the item (spell level) is reasonable. I'd like to be able to do more at cap though (e.g actually achieve 40 charges on more powerful items).

>> I'm hearing that you don't like reagents tied to base functionality of spells, but there seems to be an expectation/openess to have the option to pay more to offset penalties. As an example, let's say that a fresh level 17 can dump 20 charges into most wizard wands without special training. Is it reasonable to have a potion that mage can buy to extend his capacity to 30-40 charges, or would you view those potions as base functionality requirements?

Maybe cap charges at 20 with no gem or special reagent. Using a gem or inexpensive reagent (5k-10k) allows for charging multiple items up to as high as 40. Training would also be a factor in either case.

Potions: Potions are time consuming and generally not worth the value of the items required to make them. So if the reagent were an alchemy potion it should be with common / easily obtained ingredients or it should add additional features / capabilities over and above the base spell such that the effort is worth the final result.

>> And as a reminder... I'm not actively working on charge item (so don't make assumptions), I'm simply looking to establish a discussion for baseline expectations on it.

Happy to have the conversation. Thanks for helping to frame it.

-- Robert

A powerful whirlpool is suddenly overtaken by a windy vortex!

If I'm 1.5x in Harness Power, that's another 35 mana at level 70 (to pick an arbitrary experienced-but-pre-cap number), or about a 17% increase. I'm sure that would make it better, but I can't imagine any sane implementation of the spell that would make it worthless with 17% less mana, right?

Many common items cannot be reasonably brought to 40 charges even at cap today (small statues, quartz orbs, ruby amulets(!)) . So is this a reasonable base assumption for the discussion or are we assuming that charge item 2.0 would make allowances for this?

---

I phrased this incorrectly. What I was looking for is an actual number for expected total charges that you guys feel is a reasonable number. Be that 40, 80, 160, etc, what do you guys feel is reasonable over the lifetime of a rechargeable, and why?

Viduus

The entire Elemental Lore discussion reminds me of something that I've been saying for years. It started... well, actually, around 20 years ago, when GM Romulus was taking HUGE amounts of flak for implementing Sorcerer spells that required Spell Aim, or Mana Control, or something else.
Which--at that time--Sorcerers of the day hardly ever noticed or trained in at all, until way up in levels and they didn't have anything else to spend points on, really. (Note: at that time, no level caps.)

Maybe they learned their response style from Ophion, but the large number of GMs who replied, and the point that Romulus kept getting back to, was, "You [the profession] can multi-train in the skill. You should have some."

The dialogue between LadyFleurs and Curtis brings this out, to me. "I am doubled in Lore, and it's easy to work with. I'm level 40." versus "Lores are primarily post-cap, and add flavor."

.

I said back then, and at various points over the intervening years--particularly during when the GS4 re-write was going on--that the GMs should:
1) make a Design Decision, about what the skills are & mean and what their costs are & mean, and what their expectations are about that profession having those skills at those costs
and then they should
2) TELL THE PLAYERS what those expectations are.

Something like what I wrote up, for example:
"If you can triple in it, then the assumption is that you will be singled in it; you may commonly double in it; you might (by choosing to specialize) triple in it. This is a core capability of your profession, and you will be assumed to be a mutant beyond the pale of intended design if you do not at least single in it."
"If you can double in it, then the assumption is that you will dabble in it [.5x or more]; you may commonly single in it; you might double in it."
"If you can only single in it, then the assumption is that your profession doesn't care diddly about the skill; you might dabble in it [anything up to 1x] but will never be any damn good at it."

.

Really would solve much of the conversation about Lore, though, huh? "We can double in it. We are assumed to be .5x or more in it, depending on personal flavor, and that's where spell design would be aimed."

.

I note for the record that "core successful Sorcerer training" is now a hell of a lot more diverse than "triple in Spell Research".
I further note for the record that not a single instance of any of the Design Teams that have come and gone over that time, have ever once said anything more substantial about skill training that what was coming up in Romulus' threads about his new Sorcerer spells.

"I'd like to see a longer life on these items when they are discovered (but not an immortal life)" -- Robert Evenstar(?!?)

Sssooo... "You choose, a mortal life." </Liv Tyler>