Elemental Lore Suggestion

[Fallen]

Elemental Lore Suggestion

It is a widely held belief that wizard lores are found lacking when compared to other professions' options and skill cost in general. Wizards state Elemental lores play a small role in the augmentation of their spells until they have committed countless skill points that are much needed elsewhere.

A benefit that could added to training in their specific lores would be to increase the effectiveness of the particular elemental bolt against the Evade, Block, Perry system. As it stands, wizards suffered a unessecary loss of power with the release of this mechanical update due to their main form of attack being dodged completely time and again. With Elemental lores playing a role in adding accuracy to their arsenal, wizards would be both encouraged and rewarded for the expenditure of their hard earned TP's.

I know I didnt flesh out this thought completely, but comments would be appreciated all the same.

[Kitsun]

It comes down to wizard lores being entirely too diverse in that no specific lore controls a type of ability. Because Elemental lores focus on elements, each one by itself is kinda suckage since wizard spells are too sporatic in formation.

As it stands, that kind of change to lores would be entirely unbalancing and tip the scales toward fire lore for combat efficiency.

Wizards might've been better off if we had gotten something along the lines of:
Elemental Lore - Conjuration - Summoning of things...exploding ball spells, familiars...
Elemental Lore - Abjuration - Help with defense, enchanting...
Elemental Lore - Transferance - Familiar Gate, Duplicating, Recharging...
Elemental Lore - Streaming - Streams of fire, water, blah...

Then wizards would be like other professions and lores would enchance facets of abilities and not arbitrary spell descriptions and abilities that will probably never be 'balanced.'

[Valthissa]

I was so looking forward to wielding a staff.

When I heard we were actually going to have lores implemented for GS4 I thought we would get something that would create unique and viable training paths.

After extensive testing during beta:

I carry a shield.

I have zero lore training.

I would like to see changes to both systems that would make me change my mind and be a staff using, lore trained wizard.

so I'd be happy with any improvement in the design of the lore system.

Oh, and I think the game should be fun first, as long as a profession can advance reasonably, striving for balance is a fool's errand.

C/Valthissa

[Kitsun]

Part of the problems with the lores were that they were touted as "not being mandatory." With that in mind, the GM's designed E-lores to not significantly impact the spell system. Now you have people who want the lores they train in to give a better punch versus the people who are holding up the "no mandatory lores" sign.

Anyone sitting down and crunching the numbers and finding that lores are lacking are probably waiting for them to have significant impact on combat. I just don't see that happening.

I find runestaves and picking a lore to be perfectly *viable*. Do I get more sheer DS if I carry around a shield I'm not even trained to use? Yes. Does it bother me? No. Can I hunt perfectly fine with just the runestaff? Yep! So how is it that runestaff users aren't viable when there are many of them at all levels running around?

With GSIV, there are quite a few more training paths and nuances than in III. We still have battlemages, OHE/shielders. We now have archer-wizards floating around. We have runestaff users and their subsets: Mana Heavy Wizards, Lore Heavy Wizards, General Training, Heavy Spell Wizards.

[Valthissa]

Of course runestaff users are viable - at all levels even. As foolish as Simu may be, they do realize that characters are expecting to advance.

archer wizards are interesting. I haven't heard how those starting at level zero are doing with archery at the lower levels.

I was hoping for a system that didn't have the inherent silliness of redux - the more you train in magical skills the better defense you staff provides.

I am still hoping that the lores will be reworked to provide some tangible benefit commensurate with the tp's expended. The benefit could be combat, utility, or rp related as far as I'm concerned.

C/Valth

[Kitsun]

I must not be understanding your position...

You first said this...


Originally posted by Valthissa
When I heard we were actually going to have lores implemented for GS4 I thought we would get something that would create unique and viable training paths.


Then you said that after testing you opted for shield use, that had me assuming that you didn't think runestaff use was viable.



I was hoping for a system that didn't have the inherent silliness of redux - the more you train in magical skills the better defense you staff provides.


What more did you want the system to do? You want it to be combat viable but somehow not provide defense?

As it stands, you can train in whatever pure defining magical skills you desire and be able to defend in combat because of it.



I am still hoping that the lores will be reworked to provide some tangible benefit commensurate with the tp's expended. The benefit could be combat, utility, or rp related as far as I'm concerned.

In a way, that problem still leads back to balance...if your expecting to feel tangible results from even 20 ranks in in an e-lore, than it would translate into having incredible power if someone has 100 ranks in it.

As it stands there are benefits to DF's of the bolt spells with lore training.

There are some minor utility boosts to spells because of lore training.

The RP backing is more than a little weak right now.

[Valthissa]

email and internet forum's are such imperfect tools for communication, eh?

The system as designed provides DS for training in a lot of different skills, the ones that the developers deemed 'magical'

one might have expected a skill, like staff defense.

I would hope that you would say that lores don't really provide much for the training cost. The DF benefit is pretty small.

Earth lore seemed to provide the only real benefit as wizards often have encumberance issues.

Valthissa is a pure mage, heavily tripled, she is also a giant so encumberance is not an issue. She's 67 trains, hunts like a beast, has never failed an enchant.

Wizards are still fun. My assertion is that the more balance is the goal the less fun the players will have.

I still wish that -

1) Lores would be improved so that they provide something other than a small boost to DF.

2) Staff defense would be reworked so that it isn't a staffdux system.

Just as a reference - I've been playing a wizard since March of '98. That's not a particularly long time, but long enough to feel like the profession has lost it's way a bit. I guess that's why I had an expectation that lores would provide something that would be more defining.

C/Valth

[Artha]

You think wizards need defining? We enchant armor and weapons, we pwn on almost anything in site with lightning, water, fire, ice, or a giant boulder, we have exclusive access to the MjE circle, and we have some of the best defensive spells in the game. We don't need defining, we need lores that are worth it.

[Kitsun]

Yeah, forums can suck like that.



one might have expected a skill, like staff defense.


You might have expected a 'staff defense' skill, but then what would really be the difference in training in that skill over sword/shield? It'd seem like the same thing, just painted differently. I believe this current system lets pures choose their own focus if they want to. Wizards can overextend themselves into particular abilities(MIU, HP, Lores) and still maintian their ability to hunt.



I would hope that you would say that lores don't really provide much for the training cost. The DF benefit is pretty small.


Looking at just raw cost, it may seem that lores do cost a bit...yet comparitively they don't. If you just keep singled in the skill, it is approximately 600TP's at level 100. It's 18 spells. Spread over 3 spell lists, does 6 spells in a circle really make or break anything? What else would you do with it? Pick up more mana. Get more MIU/AS ranks. Expand into tertiary skills. Some people actually enjoy the fact that they don't HAVE to get lores.



Wizards are still fun. My assertion is that the more balance is the goal the less fun the players will have.


Its just my belief but...the more unbalanced the system, or aspects that can be abused, then the more cookie cutter wizards we'll see. (Overtraining the 400's list anyone?)

I think the real indicator that the system is fine right now is that there isn't one dominant style of training. That means people are taking their own pathes.