>I suspect the original design intent was for Wizards to train 1x in lores up to cap. Do you have a reference to something that says otherwise? 2x Lore training by design seems rather steep

it's been stated .5x lore training for "intended design." The fact that he's training in lores at all is what I was referring to. Others state that lores are for post-cap training only and I strongly disagree.

>[comparisons to Scroll Infusion]

Something (general) you have to remember is that sorcerers are hybrids and are going to be naturally more adept at charging spells across the spiritual/elemental spheres, and even more adept because they can train in the Minor Spiritual circle. Since Scroll Infusion is unfortunately ignored by a majority of the sorcerer population, those sorcerers observed charging scrolls with ease are typically capped or beyond. It's not easy at all pre-cap, and I would call it useless until level 30.

That said I have been involved regularly in charging sessions for usually over a hundred items in each session where the wizard is post-cap and trained for Charge Item, and I think that the failure rate that results in item blow up/greening is too high (I and the player of the charging wizard guesstimate it to be ~5%, and he said he would track in the future).

>Charge limit

I think 50 charges would be a better top limit than 40. At level 17 I think a capability of 15-20 charges with normal training is a good start for charging a wizard-based wand.

Back when I was charging orbs and statues all the time, 35 charges is where I would stop. Getting it to 34-35 was usually pretty easy, and trying to push for more than that would get pretty risky.

That said, 5% does sound about right just based on the items that would green on me when I was charging all the time. 1 in 20 sounds mostly right.

I'd rather greening an item go away though and just let them slowly become useless via degradation. Having both is overkill, at least with the current availability of spells in rechargeable items.

~ Methais

>> The fact that he's training in lores at all is what I was referring to. Others state that lores are for post-cap training only and I strongly disagree.

Thanks for clarifying on this. We are in agreement in our disagreement (with those that suggest lores are for post-cap only)!

>> That said I have been involved regularly in charging sessions for usually over a hundred items in each session where the wizard is post-cap and trained for Charge Item, and I think that the failure rate that results in item blow up/greening is too high (I and the player of the charging wizard guesstimate it to be ~5%, and he said he would track in the future).

Honestly it seems to be a factor of how much you are trying to push the charges into the item. The rate is definitely less than 5% if you drop back a few charges from where you start running into problems. If you really push then you will likely see in excess of 5%.

>> I think 50 charges would be a better top limit than 40.

I could get on board with 50 as well. 40... 50. Close enough for agreement for me either way.

-- Robert

A powerful whirlpool is suddenly overtaken by a windy vortex!

I like charges based on type of work / item. But then I'm old-school.

Wands hold up to 40 charges. Rods up to 80. Staves, and potentially banners, etc. - hp to 100. Jewelry can hold 20 (dwarven) to 80 (elven) charges, depending on type of work and material.

I like charges being more difficult based on known or learnable spell / sphere. I also like that anything should be possible.


I don't believe a pre-lord wizard should be able to charge up a gold wand to capacity. And I think it's been a mistake for decades to have the game system set up to. . . well, nevermind. That's history.

I think a very old suggestion should be implemented - allow wizards (literally any wizard) to start imbuing orb gems with mana. The more training, the more abilities, etc. One 517 cast, one orb, one rub, all stored mana goes into the item - then the item cannot be charged again until something happens (time passes, charge used, etc).

If that pre-lord wizard lucks into a very pure uncut diamond and saves mana in it - then yes, he should be able to charge up a gold wand completely. If he finds two, then he can do two.

The bigger challenge is that our gem system doesn't tier that way - no 50K or 100K gems for the capped folks. That would need to be addressed.

Now, how to do that in the 'efficient' universe? Not a fan, so I'll hope others suggest.

Doug

>>>Curtis's wizard

>>I'm curious now...feel like showing us your current SKILL?


Sure. A few notes:

1) I'm honestly surprised 2x lores is being seen as a strange choice. It hasn't felt like a burden on my training at all and has given a lot of very useful perks. Similarly, I haven't felt any real pressure to pay the massive opportunity cost to 3x spells- the benefits looks fairly minor to me and would preclude many other things I've found very useful like skinning, lores, and not being auto-owned by CMANs.
2) Now that I've reached +1 / rank, I'm pretty much done with First Aid / Survival for now. Might change my mind later, but have higher priorities now- specifically upping my Combat Maneuver ranks a bit.
3) I have a +7 water lore bonus orb, so I'll actually hit the 35 rank 5 mana pool per pulse threshold at 41. I'll go up to 4 earth ranks next to make Major Acid splash effect decent, then probably get water to 45. (which would only require 7 additional ranks due to how the +7 bonus works.) Actually interested in getting Earth to 60 for 2x 950 per min in far future.
4) For spells, I'm looking to go straight to 950 maintaining my 2.0x training. (Mostly I want to be a decent-ish enchanter, but 950 also just looks quite strong. At least be able to 7x normal items.) Then I'll probably go to 550 and 335 last. (Major E-Wave looks cool, but honestly has a lot of overlap with other spells.)


Quasius (at level 40), your base skill bonuses, ranks and goals are:
Skill Name | Actual Actual
| Bonus Ranks
Armor Use..........................| 20 4
Combat Maneuvers...................| 20 4
Multi Opponent Combat..............| 5 1
Physical Fitness...................| 141 41
Arcane Symbols.....................| 141 41
Magic Item Use.....................| 141 41
Spell Aiming.......................| 182 82
Harness Power......................| 140 40
Elemental Mana Control.............| 141 41
Elemental Lore - Air...............| 93 21
Elemental Lore - Earth.............| 5 1
Elemental Lore - Fire..............| 120 30
Elemental Lore - Water.............| 120 30
Survival...........................| 140 40
Perception.........................| 141 41
Climbing...........................| 70 15
Swimming...........................| 70 15
First Aid..........................| 140 40

Spell Lists
Major Elemental....................| 20

Spell Lists
Minor Elemental....................| 30

Spell Lists
Wizard.............................| 32

>>I'm honestly surprised 2x lores is being seen as a strange choice.

It's a bit off-tangent for the thread, but I want to pontificate a moment about training (in general) to address your lores observation, Curtis.

First, there are many different ways to play the game. Some drive for the greatest of efficiencies available to a profession - which leads to a very formulaic approach to what needs to be trained in and by when. Some drive for utility at the cost of efficiency (effectiveness over efficiency) - which leads to another very formulaic approach to what needs to be trained in and by when. Some drive for 'vision'; specifically they will train their characters in what they see their character being interested in / exposed to, as a more 'roleplay-centric' approach which may specifically lead to inefficiencies and ineffectiveness - which leads to a very non-formulaic approach to what needs to be trained in and by when. Other variations exist, as well, but I think I've plotted out appropriately at least three of the poles in the scatter diagram, if you will.

Second, there are many different experience (read here - things we enjoy) levels of players that overlay these training choices. Some of the players present 'grew up' in GS3, with a vastly different set of experiences than what someone who only knows GS4 may appreciate. Some of the players present never trained in lores at all, or trained in lores enough to unlock a particular feature and then stopped completely. Others came 'late to the party', but very quickly moved through the levels with their characters and as such are a bit more agile in what they will and / or won't train in. Most of this is not terribly material, with the exception that it does help to explain why some of us press for things the way we do, in both of these categories.

And third, there are 'snapshot' perspectives that likely won't hold true over time - even, I would submit, at end-game or well post-cap. The easiest case to demonstrate this 'angle' is post-cap characters. Once a character reaches level 100, the player gains a relatively broader freedom in those areas in which to train the character. This then amplifies that first category - striving for efficiency (triple train spells with a particular spell circle overloaded to maximize a particular spell's impact in hunting); striving for effectiveness (train MOC, trading, first aid, survival, perception, etc., in order to gain skills in areas not necessarily central to that character's profession); and, striving for 'vision' (training seemingly at odds to the world because this particular wizard is a weapons-master, or a lockpicker, or whatever else that roleplay vision has in mind).

It is this third point, well before cap, that can be so confusing. Wizards are a great profession in that - no matter what drives the player's selection in the first and second categories - it is hard to 'tank' a wizard to be unable to continue to progress. And it is in this third point, Curtis, where you'll find as you advance that you might not maintain a 2x lores training path. It's entirely possible you'll pick up other skills (sure seems that way based on what I'm reading) and you may find yourself at level 100 with a wizard that is comfortably .8x to 1x trained in lores. Suddenly (well, over the course of a year or more), that 2x lore training position shifts closer to Fleur's position that lores are a post-cap proposition - even if it doesn't feel that way today. Or, you may maintain that 2x lore path, totally invalidating Fleur's position on lores, but at some cost to either efficiency which is one of Fleur's leading principles, or effectiveness which is an area I try to advocate.

I think V said it best in this thread, so far - you should train your wizard the way you want to. The best advice I personally can offer is stay flexible, and enjoy! The game exists in three phases to my mind - up to level 66 (0 to 1/2 cap experience), level 67 to 100 (1/2 to full cap experience), and post cap (multiples of cap experience). Most players shift their perspective over these three phases. Some of the most vehement disagreements that I've read and been party to occur (I believe) because it affects the players' characters where they are in a point in time - not because of the broader term impact throughout the span of levels. Like all generalizations, this one has its exceptions. But most of the time, I think it will hold true. Of us all, the GMs are primarily interested in the spectrum of the profession, and we each tend to gravitate towards what affects our alternate personae and champion that.

We each invest a huge amount in our alternate personae through various means of time / labor, acquisition, helping / hindering other characters (or players!) and in general seeking our personal enjoyment in ways that feel justified for what we're investing. For each of these opinions (none of which are wrong) there is no real canonical prescription. It's a game!

It's just damned hard to remember that, sometimes.

Doug

Pures are expected to be 1x trained in lores. Individual players can, of course, choose to train how they want, but if you deviate, it means we do not design penalties or bonuses specifically with your character in mind. e.g. we implement a new bonus for further training in a skill. If your character didn't train in that, that was their decision, while those who met the expected training will gain the new bonus.

If we did update Charge Item (517), I would fully expect to implement Elemental Lore, Water into it. We've specifically stated that it deals with mana and restoration, which is exactly what 517 is doing.

GameMaster Estild

If we did update Charge Item (517), I would fully expect to implement Elemental Lore, Water into it. We've specifically stated that it deals with mana and restoration, which is exactly what 517 is doing.

Which I would be completely ok with as long as the need for outside professions went away (no bards) and the process was streamlined and made less time-consuming.


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

AIM: Kaight (Matt) GS4

>If we did update Charge Item (517), I would fully expect to implement Elemental Lore, Water into it. We've specifically stated that it deals with mana and restoration, which is exactly what 517 is doing.

Which we, wizards, have nothing against.

What we don't want to see is that the spell is crippled/hindered or a group of wizards are excluded from having a useful spell because it requires a specific lore to make the spell useful just because they don't train in X elemental lore.

When you make spells give benefits at X amount of lore and then you say people like these "unlocks" at the X amount of lore levels....are you sure that they like these unlocks forced into spells at certain thresholds or do the players simply train in those lores to have the unlocked benefit? Just because someone does something, doesn't mean they like it.

It all depends on how you view it. I find a wizard that dabbls across all lores to achieve max unlocks/beneifts in all spells tend to be better off than a wizard that focuses one or two lores. While they choose to focus one/two lores they miss out on other aspects of some spells they don't train lores for and see little in return for their end game for striving to be focused.

I still fear we are expected to dabble in all lores to get useful results from our spells and that's how I see things are still progressing with wizard spells. If all wizards dabble in each lore, what's the point of them? A few spells that came out or were updated I believe were handled very well and lores add to them: 917, 520 and 909.

909 - useful setup spell. No lores required to have it be useful. If you want to extra benefit to the spell, EL:E aids in EBP% reduction. Also, EMC helps reduce the cost of self cast uses.
917 - useful attack spell (more so against squishier targets). The spell does good damage, especially if the target is prone/stunned/injured. No lores are required. If you train in EL:F/EL:W, you could get a second crit to trigger or EL:E helps against targets that aren't prone/stunned.
520 - useful defensive tool. You actually get improved crit padding based on your MjE spell ranks. No lore is required to use the spell. Should you want to make use of one of the beneifts tied to fire/water/earth/air, you can spend extra mana if you lack the base 20 rank requirement and still see some extra usefulness out of it even though you have no lore.

-Drumpel

>>When you make spells give benefits at X amount of lore and then you say people like these "unlocks" at the X amount of lore levels....are you sure that they like these unlocks forced into spells at certain thresholds or do the players simply train in those lores to have the unlocked benefit? Just because someone does something, doesn't mean they like it.

I like it. I really like. It's actively cool to work towards those goals and get a real payoff that's way more visible then +0.001 DF. (To be clear, I think the incremetal DF-type bonuses are completely fine, but I also think the "threshold" bonuses are really good too.) I'm sure not everyone sees it that way, but I'm also sure I'm not the only one that feels the way I do.

With that said, I agree that any spell should be useful without lore- but the definition of "useful" has to be reasonable. I think there's a temptation to say "his spell is better, so mine is useless." But again, that seems to be the exact current design philosophy so I'm confused why people think it isn't or are worried it will become that way. The only ones I can think of are maybe 907 and 908 since they're just bad bolt spells w/o lore, but you really only need 4 ranks to make them decent.

So, I'm be interested if someone could give me an example of a spell they think is useless without lore. Or is this just a fear of what might happen? (In which case, what is that fear based on?)

<<I still fear we are expected to dabble in all lores to get useful results from our spells and that's how I see things are still progressing with wizard spells. If all wizards dabble in each lore, what's the point of them?

If you replace "lores" with "spell aiming," do you still agree with your own statement? If not, why not?

>If I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, can you please clarify? I know everything sounds meaner on the Internet, so I'm trying to be clear that I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from and examine if it makes sense for the entire game / player base as a whole. :)

Sure. It has nothing to do with the fact that it's not in my training plan, and "I hate it", but the entire principle of design consistency and the four-way split wizards have to face with elemental lores. I don't want to rehash the entire ELR here, but the point of comparison between the ELR, the SLR (Spiritual lore review, which was excellent) and Sorcerous lores is that the latter two largely are implemented with the lores being true bonuses rather than required to unlock actual functionality of nearly every spell. 917 and 520 are almost the only exceptions to this.

Further, spiritual lores are split three-ways and sorcerous lores two-ways, which allows for very good benefits to be reached around 60-70 ranks per lore type before seeing serious diminishing returns, which is something you had mentioned. As it stands now, elemental lores are split four-ways, which with similar or higher thresholds required for "very good" benefits for nearly every spell, means that wizards lose out a lot more from lore choices than any of the other spiritual pures do.

We can't seem to get away from this forced "choice" of a four-way split that results in far sub-optimal results than wizards had enjoyed before all of these "updates" because for some reason, elemental lores have been designated certain "roles" per lore type rather than being intended for pure flavor. What this means is that if a wizard wants to be great at offense, they suffer significantly defensively or utility wise due to the way the lores are allocated among the elements. In contrast, all three spiritual lores provide significant offensive benefits, for example, just in different ways. So they really get the best of all worlds, yet their flavor comes not from the lore itself but in the spells one chooses to prioritize due to training in certain ones.

What I'm saying is, given the history of wizard "updates" requiring lores to unlock features that Dev considers "bonus", but players would actually want available to all actively playing wizards, such as Enchant Item and the mana pool, I don't foresee anything good coming out of a lore component. From a post-cap perspective, requiring more and more of a four-way split again results in more mediocrity vs. excellence in any given area over the excellence in nearly all areas that the other spiritual pures enjoy. I don't believe wizards should be forced to make more sacrifices than the other pures in order to enjoy the same level of options within their profession. From a design consistency standpoint, I also disagree with requiring or adding lores to Charge Item because Scroll Infusion, which is ideally set up, does not require it. Not every spell should need a lore to get maximum use out of it at a post-cap level.

>Can you give me a specific example of one of our spells you feel is non-functional without lore?

519. 917. 950. Any core combat spell. Then you make those choices and you're left in the dust when it comes to defense (535) and utility (925). There are tons of other examples, but I don't have time to dig them out right now.

<<519. 917. 950. Any core combat spell. Then you make those choices and you're left in the dust when it comes to defense (535) and utility (925).

So I feel like there's a definitional issue here with "functional." I can't comment on 519 because I just haven't used it much, but 950 seems completely functional without any lore unless the description is wrong? At base functionality, it lets you cast 6 spells instantly for maybe a slight mana premium if there's only 1 monster (so the "multi-cast" aspect of bolts is wasted), which seems pretty useful to me.

And "core combat spells" certainly function without lore. I played back in GS3 when lore didn't exist and 906, etc worked just fine. I don't understand how a spell is fairly called "non-functional" for not having a relatively minor DF increase.

So maybe you're referring more to just not wanting bonuses from lores? Except you just said you liked Spiritual and Sorcerous Lores because they provided bonuses, so I'm not sure I'm understanding correctly. Can you give me an example of a Spiritual / Sorcerous Lore providing a bonus (the kind of bonus you like) that is different from the DF bonus to 906 (the kind of bonus you don't like)?

>So, I'm be interested if someone could give me an example of a spell they think is useless without lore. Or is this just a fear of what might happen? (In which case, what is that fear based on?)

514 and 914 are pretty useless without lores. 519 also took a hit with lore over the past year or so from recent changes.

914 will function, but it takes so long for the spell to build that you can kill the creature before the first crit cycle hits by casting other spells. Playing with it a little with my younger wizard who has 30 (maybe 31) ranks EL:A, the storm does build faster over not having lore, but it is still slow as hell.

514 - This spell is pretty much worthless without lore and even with lore, it still isn't very good. You want to utilize the SLAP function, you must be .5x trained for your level in EL:E. You want to utilize CLENCH, you need to be roughly 1x trained for your level in EL:E and even then, you're not guaranteed CLENCH will work 100% of the time until you hit 1.25x trained. You want to POUND? HA! If you're not at least 1.6x trained in EL:E for your level, don't expect POUND to trigger much. If you want 100% guarantee it triggers, you need to be fully 2x in EL:E

519 (I'm sure can be argueed it's a viable spell without lore) - It's just a basic spell with no real benefit now, much like casting 415. You may get a random crit kill, but that's about it (aside from the creature rolling around sometimes if it is on fire). If you're not hitting around 100 ranks EL:F, you're missing out a lot on the extra chance for a extra damage cycle and even 100 ranks you're at 9% chance to instant kill assuming your endroll is 150 or greater. 519 can be kind of useful as a disabler spell, but even then at 15 mana it's a single target disable spell.

>I like it. I really like. It's actively cool to work towards those goals and get a real payoff that's way more visible then +0.001 DF. (To be clear, I think the incremetal DF-type bonuses are completely fine, but I also think the "threshold" bonuses are really good too.) I'm sure not everyone sees it that way, but I'm also sure I'm not the only one that feels the way I do.

To me, that is the issue. If all bolt spells were available to all wizard, but then they actually had some kind of power growth as you focused on lores (not just a DF increase), wouldn't that be better? Say you're playing a water mage, you're focusing on water lore. Do you really want to divert 20 ranks of lores to EL:A just to get the use of a bolt spell when it means it'll detract from other spells you focus on using because of your EL:W?

I'd much rather see all wizards have access to Tonis Bolt spell, then allow EL:A to further benefit those that's train in the lore.
Maybe every rank improves the knock down chance
Then maybe at 20 ranks the crit power increases and chance to knockdown improves
Then maybe at 50 ranks the spell also causes a slow effect (think of it as if the target becomes disoriented) or just tacks on a couple seconds of hard RT
Then maybe every ranks over 50 you get a .5% chance to generate a focused vortex that generates 1-3 crit cycles, each with a high success rate of knockdown
(clearly just spit-balling ideas here)

I would like to think the base spell of Tonis Bolt would function for all wizards without any lore. The spell would work as it does now, but it would able to be cast at 0 ranks EL:A instead of 20 that it costs.

Everyone would be able to have a beneficial base spell that can be used from when you learn spell 505 to end game. If you wish to learn EL:A ranks, doing so improves the spell and make it more viable to you. Even if you choose not to learn EL:A ranks, you'd still have a viable spell to use.

-Drumpel

>I would like to think the base spell of Tonis Bolt would function for all wizards without any lore. The spell would work as it does now, but it would able to be cast at 0 ranks EL:A instead of 20 that it costs.

>Everyone would be able to have a beneficial base spell that can be used from when you learn spell 505 to end game. If you wish to learn EL:A ranks, doing so improves the spell and make it more viable to you. Even if you choose not to learn EL:A ranks, you'd still have a viable spell to use.

I always thought Tonis Bolt should be available to all wizards, with air lore giving it a chance (increased by EL:A) to flare a double cast. It's not exactly a high damage or high crit spell and its main use is as a knockdown.

If Steam Bolt is to remain a 20 lore requirement, I think 20 water lore or 10 fire + 10 water lore should also unlock it.

Fire + Water = steam so I see no reason why it should be unlockable with only fire lore and not also water lore.

ATTUNE should also grant phantom lore ranks for the attuned element. Just saying.



~ Methais

>But without knowing anything (more, about the subtle intricacies involved with steam) about Fire, why would knowing "more about water" (20 Water) allow you to make steam out of the waterbolt?

I could then argue that if you don't know how to make steam since you don't anything about fire (no fire lore), then how can you bolt with fire (906)?

If you can cast 906 without fire lore....
If you can cast 901 without air/water lore....
If you can cast 904 without water/earth lore....

Why does it take any lore to cast a steam bolt? Clearly you know how to make a fire bolt (906) and a water bolt (903), why can't you muster a steam bolt?

-Drumpel

>>514 and 914 are pretty useless without lores. 519 also took a hit with lore over the past year or so from recent changes.

I think differently on these. 914 time to generate is too long. We're agreed. And 914 time to generate with lores is too long. We're agreed. But - that's not a lore issue.

514 has a base function available to all wizards - rooting the target on a successful cast. This particular function might be (or might not be) fairly called 'insufficient', but the power of rooting your target is often undersold. Wizards can protect themselves from one of their greatest weaknesses - maneuvers - either by killing fast, or rooting. If killing fast reliably is an option, that's probably the solo tactic to run with. And we spend a lot of air time discussing how 'reliable' 'fast' 'killing' power is needed.

But, if killing fast reliably is not an option, rooting is far safer - even if a bit more spendy. Knocking over (909, 912) is fun, too! And sometimes, even more useful.

519 likewise has a base function available to all wizards - disable / RT. For a time, it was a devastating kill spell with a fairly high chance of instant obliteration. That was changed, and because the current version is much less likely to insta-kill, we rightly feel something has been taken away. But - even in those heady days, the base function existed to all wizards - fire lore masters and non-masters alike.

The discussion about 'base spell functionality' is very interesting to me, and I haven't offered much in this thread recently about my thoughts on it. But until we can at least do the courtesy of recognizing that base functionality is there, we probably shouldn't be claiming it only works with lores. I'm all about improvements - but we need to start with recognizing that base level and discussing it.

Doug

>514 has a base function available to all wizards - rooting the target on a successful cast.

512 does it better, plus it hits multiple targets (up to 4 without any lore). Even if you only cast against 1 target, it still costs 2 less mana. Follow up attacks with 514, they're TD based - you run into fumbles and low end rolls not providing much damage. Plus if you lack proper EL:E ranks, you're very limited to what verb(s) you can use. Even if you stuck a target with 514, it's loses 50 AS (melee) and 25 AS (ranged) & 25 DS, you'd probably just be better off tossing a few mid ranged bolts (904 or 906) at the target over trying to use CLENCH/POUND for 6/8 mana.

>519 likewise has a base function available to all wizards - disable / RT.

Seems like you could also lock something up with 410 or 912, or maybe even 512 if you didn't need it truly disabled - granted you get no damage on the cast from these spells it still saves 3-5 mana over casting the EVOKE version of 519. The spell can have situational uses where your target is resistant/immune to 410 and/or 912....then again, there are targets that are immune to 519 as well. My wizard, self cast 909 costs 4 mana. If my target is easily controlled with ewave, I could even STOMP/TAP self cast 909 (4 mana) and cast ewave (10 mana) and still be 1 mana less than 519 EVOKED version. Now my target is prone, reduced EBP and pinned in RT from ewave.

The sad part of 519 is even with heavy fire lore ranks, it's still a shadow of it's former self in outright destructive power. Like I said, it can be argued 519 can be useful without lore, it's just not as useful as it used to be if you ask me.

>The discussion about 'base spell functionality' is very interesting to me, and I haven't offered much in this thread recently about my thoughts on it.

It's all based on perception. I see the idea of Tonis Bolt being a base function, bolt. Whereas someone else may see the CS cast version of the spell being base function of the spell.

I find it hard to understand why a Steam Bolt is only achievable once you hit 20 ranks EL:F. You already know 906 and 903, why do you need lore to make something steam?

It's hard to pinpoint where a base function of a spell begins and where it ends depending on how you view a spell and what it offers.

As for 517, if EL:W can improve your mana reduction to charging - great. Just as long as EL:W isn't a requirement to make the spell useful (see spells 917, 520 and 909 as good designed spells that make the spells functional for all, even for those that have no lore ranks).

-Drumpel

It's tough.

Doug

---

Personal Opinion Section

---

This is true.

Take everyone's poster child spell for lores done right - 520. The line between opinion on "right" and "wrong" is pretty thin. It could have been defined as the base functionality of the spell being crit padding, and all of the elemental aspects being unlockable after X number of ranks. By that definition of the base, you could argue that the lore aspects should only be unlocked after certain lore thresholds (100 ranks as an example) are met to extend the spell. Want dispel protection, get 100 ranks in water. Better encumbrance? 100 ranks in air lore. Would it still be considered a great success if your fire lore heavy build excluded you from extra dispel/stun protection?

You all tend to like this spell because it's one of those situations where you get to have your cake and eat it too. Another argument could be made that you're never really forced to make any hard choices when it comes to training for 520, and therefore it doesn't have a real cost associated with it.

It's generally easier for us assess releases and add things than it is for us to assess and remove things. While it may seem like a great thing that something was released the blows your socks off, it could have the unintended consequence of closing off other venues.

What I mean by that is, let's say GS had a druid class, and that we added an polymorphed cat form that allowed them to instantly kill any target in 3 seconds, guaranteed. Adding any new combat ability that didn't auto kill in 3 seconds would be pointless, even if it added flavor. It's scales for us, too far left and complaints, too far right and we've reduced capacity to make any further tweaks that won't measure up.

Something to think about when you're writing up those reviews of underwhelming releases.

---

End Personal Opinion Section

---

Viduus