|
Post by Jopper13 on May 10, 2016 11:06:38 GMT -5
Hey everyone! I wanted to get a discussion going on the topic of counter magic. The intent is to find a balanced approach to not just magic but how magic can be defended against. For more ideas, there is a 2 year old thread that discussed new spell ideas and magic. It may be a nice read for some ideas, but we moved past a lot of the content this discussion talks about. lasthopelarp.proboards.com/thread/646/new-mechanic-spellsGOAL / INTENTThe goal is to find a balanced approach to counter magic defenses in the game or potential tweaks to current spells... NOT to break/nerf magic entirely or make it useless. Our system has a very strong rock/paper/scissors balance in it, but currently there is little that balances out magic when compared to shields/cleavers/archers/etc when it comes to combat. Spells can miss (wasted mana) and mages tend to be vulnerable when using magic, so again the aim is not to nerf. Keep in mind this is also NOT a discussion to focus on PLAYER/CHARACTER MAGIC but magic has a whole... this also influences the magic that NPCs can wield against the players. PERSONAL PERSPECTIVEThe following summary is my personal opinion... this is NOT an official statement about the game and the direction we are going. From having almost 5 years of event and practice experience (I have never missed an event and I have only missed 2 practices in the entire time we have run them) I have been on the receiving end of magic for about 95% of that time and on the giving end about 5%. I normally do not use magic; I enjoy lower magic stuff and prefer to use weapons and armor. Magic has consistently been one of the most successful driving forces in influencing/winning/or turning a combat in the entirety of Last Hope. It is usually the addition of arcane magic either pushing people back, shattering/breaking shields, or death bolting players to drop them that turns the tide of any battle. I have played a lot of NPCs and unless we add magic to the NPC side, it is very rare that a group can even add a large challenge to the player group. I don't mind that bringing a weapon to bear against an enemy that does not have it can turn the tide quickly (like bringing archery to bear against a line of enemies with no shields) so it makes sense that it should not balance out. The problem is that arcane magic is not just the "Rock" in the triangle of Rock, Paper, Scissors... it is like adding in the Dynamite to the game; it has more of an effect on numerous types of enemies and not just one kind. There have even been instances where a single 2nd level spell caster on the NPC side can turn the tide against the PCs, making an encounter much more lethal than intended. I have personally witnessed numerous events sway a fight substantially in one direction or the other based solely on the addition of arcane magic... nevermind the type of armor, shields, or skills that can also be added to the fight. I know the game does not have to be fair or completely balanced; this is not World of Warcraft where the different races and classes should balance out so a 50 lvl Warrior and a 50 level mage can have a fair fight in PvP. That is not the intent. Arcane magic should be powerful and have an impact, but I have long been uncomfortable with the the absolutely devastating impact that arcane magic has on one single fight. We have more mechanics to add more mana to powerful spellcasters (mana transfer, enhanced meditation, mana potions) to push them above and beyond the "Yes you are powerful but we are limited by mana" balance point... but we have nothing that reduces the effectiveness/impact of magic or ways to counter it. I completely understand that someone that dedicates their entire PC to magic (For example, how Drake Nelson plays Vazra) is not the "norm" of a spellcaster and represents a high level mage, someone who is above and beyond the norm. Yes, a spellcaster like Vazra SHOULD be able to make a larger impact than others because of his magic skills, items, training, etc... but currently there is no equivalent to that on the receiving side... a dedicated warrior with tons of skills, exp, armor, training etc cannot enhance their effectiveness against magic at all. Currently there is... 1) Mage Armor (a spell you have to have magic to use... but it counters all attacks, not just spells, so its use as an anti-magic is circumstantial and random at best) 2) Then we have the Weaver spell auras (red for anti-shatter bolt and green for anti-acid bolt... both are single use absorb spells and they hit you with a push when used, representing the dissipation/release of magic of the spell instead of it harming you) 3) Then we have Rage, which you can only use when you are basically about to die and go down in the fight; spells only stagger you, so you can charge after a mage who will usually push you and then run away... but there is a chance they can be cut down because of it. 4) Good ole dodging of the defender or bad accuracy of the attacking mage; Death bolt is pricey at 8 mana and depressing when thrown and it misses. Usually spells are thrown from behind shield walls and within the range of 5-8 feet, so they hit roughly 75-85% of the time. Dodging is hard to do, but possible... until Push is used, which is a 100% accuracy "always hits" spell. As stated earlier, I have been on the receiving end of a TON of spells over the last 5 years. I personally don't like that I spend every week training and conditioning in my armor and practicing my weapon skills to have it nerfed/nullified by spells. It is impossible, save for user error on the mages part, to rush in and attack a mage... their push spells ALWAYS hit. Having a spell instantly destroy my shield, the single most important piece of equipment in any combat encounter, makes me extremely vulnerable after that or severely dampens our effectiveness as a shield wall. Having another spell instantly reduce my 40-70 lbs of armor that cost anywhere from $200-$2000 to make or buy to nothing is also devastating and means I die quickly, even though I train in it and make it an important part of my role in a game. Having a death bolt take me out of the fight in a single shot sucks... usually because fights are not big enough to allow proper casualty extraction of the wounded to seek first aid or medical help. In a 40 vs 40 fight, dropping in combat isn't that big of a deal... there are 39 other people to hold the line. But in a 5 vs 5 fight, taking a fighter out means you have reduced their fighting potential by 20% with a single spell, possibly 40% if it forces an ally to pull off the line to help them. This is brutal, efficient, and lethal with the way things trickle through. Mages have multiple tools to render a warrior ineffective or take them out of a fight, but warriors have zero ways to render their magic ineffective or even merely lessen their effects. I recently had a discussion with our players at a practice... there is evidence in our lore and mechanics we have used in the past that show that magic can indeed be countered or even rendered inert. There are areas devoid of mana where spellcasters can't recover mana points because the mana stream does not flow through that area. We already have aura spells (Mage armor which absorbs any spell, Red/Green auras that absorb shatter or acid bolts) that show that things exist that can divert, absorb, or diminish spells. There have been enemies encountered that either absorb magic or are immune to it in some fashion. The history of our world also promotes this; if the Syndar are a magic based culture (almost all Syndar have magic) then either other Syndar would have developed a counter to this powerful weapon to take it away from them or the human kingdoms of Faedrun would have found ways to negate this advantage of the Syndar kingdoms in order to pose a legitimate threat or put up any kind of defense. When a weapon proves useful on the battlefield, it is not out of the question that a counter or a way to lessen its impact is searched for. Arcane magic is indeed a powerful weapon... it makes sense that over the millenia the kingdoms of the Syndar and/or the Humans would have found ways to defend against it or counter its usefulness. While some may view countering or reducing magic "Is not fair to the mages" that statement is absolutely true; it is not fair, nor is it really meant to be. Ask any warrior who has been on the receiving end of arcane magic how "fair" they feel magic is and you will probably get a similar story most of the time. Even at events this imbalances is seen by players playing PCs... any event that proposes a significant magic presence on the NPC side tends to be seen unfavorably by the PC group with comments of "The NPCs were too powerful" or "I coudn't even fight because I was taken out by NPC magic early on" or "the sides were not fair because the NPCs had magic". Does it not stand to reason that if the PCs can bring magic to bear in a fight that the NPCs can do so as well? We can throw in extra shields, extra armor, extra hits, even give pull arrow and rage and cleavers to the NPC side and have it influence a fight but only nominally... but adding in a single mage with Push/Shatter/Acid/Death bolt has a much more prevalent impact on the challenge rating and outcome of any encounter. In summary, I think magic is too rampant in our game, but that is more my personal opinion and less an actual concern with the overall LARP system we have. I do, however, feel that the ability to sway any single battle with even a single medium level mage is out of balance... NOT just for the PC side of things but with the NPC side; we actively do not give magic to NPCs sometimes because it can reduce a fight too quickly or provides too much of a "unfair advantage" against the PCs. I am more in favor of tweaking this balance not to lessen or nerf arcane magic, but to allow opponents to endure magic a bit longer than we currently have so it is not quite as devastating in combat. Our system is very unforgiving once "the slipper slope" is reached in a fight. Usually the sides are somewhat matched, they duke it out for a while, and then "the point" hits and one side crumbles quickly and the fight is over. We have joked around that combat in our system follows the "We are fine, we are fine, aaaand now we are f*cked" progression... I would like to see more done to lessen the time it takes to push the fight to the "you are hosed" point, because at that point the (usually outnumbered) NPCs are just that much more impotent or the PCs are that much closer to being overrun and killed/finished in a skirmish. PROPOSED IDEAS TO DISCUSS:Tone Down of Magic: There is a potential look at toning down "single shots" like Shatter, Acid, or Death bolts. An idea has been floating around for quite some time that would reduce their mana cost but their power; Maybe a shatter bolt is 1 mana or 2 mana but instead only does a single cleave or takes away half of the total shield points. Same with acid; reduce the mana but it does half of their total armor in damage. Death bolt reduces in mana cost but does a Light Wound instead of a Mortal wound, meaning it has a direct impact/detriment to whoever it hits, but it does not drop them... similar to an unblockable arrow. Spell Wards: Either a necklace aura (Purple?) that is placed on someone or a visible enchantment on a shield, this would allow a player to absorb spells. There are lots of ideas... something that only blocks push spells, something that only blocks spell bolts (so push and flare could still hit someone), something can blocks spells but does damage to the warded shield each time it gets hit (the energy "explodes" on contact with the ward, which damages the shield) or something that absorbs a spell but does a point of damage to the defender (which means powerful spells like Shatter/Acid/Death bolt are reduced, but it actually makes Push dangerous because it converts it to doing damage instead of just blasting you back) Spell Defense Skills: If you can condition your body to absorb more damage, why can't you condition it to take more arcane abuse? Perhaps a skill that allows you to resist magic... I am less keen on this ability because it seems wonky and I don't know how to make it work, but it is worth a look. We have Disease and Poison resistance... why not Arcane or Magic resistance? Thoughts? Comments? Concerns? Please reply and add to the discussion! (PS: Nothing is changing without heavy consideration and playtesting, so don't worry about knee jerk reactions)
|
|
Faolan
Archons of the Spire
I must follow the people. Am I not their leader?
Posts: 93
|
Post by Faolan on May 10, 2016 12:21:32 GMT -5
Quick Thoughts:
What if the weaver auras were a bit cheaper (maybe cost one mana more than the spell they protect against instead of the double it currently is)?
Also, would it be reasonable to change their taking up one of the aura slots to taking up half an aura slot? This might balance out with these particular auras only protecting against exact spells where as the mage armor and protection auras are more of catch alls. Though I can also see this being more clunky. But then it might be easier to expand the weaver auras to include other anti-spells like anti-deathbolt and anti-icebolt.
Maybe the push effect when the aura pops is too much. I could see just a stagger being reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by Aifric Camden on May 10, 2016 12:34:37 GMT -5
Perhaps a potential spell defense skill might be something like "Block spells" which would allow you to block spells with your shield/weapon, which would stagger you but block the spell effect.
you could also change shatterbolt so that it MUST hit a shield in order to be effective, although the "Block spells" skill wouldn't work against shatterbolt.
it'd be interesting, i think, since it would add a level of prediction/bluffing to the game. since if a shield user with Block Spells goes up against a mage, they have to try to predict whether a mage is going to use shatterbolt or not when they start channeling mana. meanwhile the mage has to try to predict whether or not their target will block the spell, since if they do so and the mage isn't throwing a shatterbolt they could waste their mana (and lose their advantage altogether). so it sounds like every fight would start with shatterbolt, but the warrior might anticipate that... u see
it would also be a minor nerf to shatterbolt without making it worthless.
another idea: "spell protection" of some sort for having a full suit of armor, similar to arrow protection.
to be honest, though, i find it sort of odd that apparently tons of people think magic is OP, yet there are only a few dedicated mage pc's. it's not like its particularly difficult to get arcane spells (i would argue it's easier than buying expensive gear for your warrior). if magic were really overpowered, wouldn't everyone would be playing one?
i'd also like to point out that the powerful mage pc's in the game (vazra...) got that way because they've spent many years worth of time and xp on increasing their power. the average mage is not throwing 10 deathbolts in a single game; they're lucky to throw 1. i think nerfing magic would be punishing the most dedicated players. introducing an expensive (15 xp at least) skill to provide a counter for magic is a much better solution IMO, since it rewards the other dedicated non-mage players and even gives mages an interesting potential gameplay element/challenge to work around.
|
|
|
Post by Archmage Vazra on May 10, 2016 12:53:04 GMT -5
I would make the same arguments for shields being the decisive factor in nearly every battle. Magic is a support role, and while it is powerful, it also relies on allies to function effectively. One mage versus any number of enemies is effectively screwed on his own. It is the "artillery" of Last Hope, defenseless and nearly impossible to use on it's own. Perhaps it is like dynamite, but dynamite needs to be carefully handled, laid out, and detonated, which is an extraordinarily difficult process under fire and will require the aid of a team. My point is, you are so extremely vulnerable while casting, both you're hands are empty, you can't cast and wield a weapon, anybody could run up and cut you to pieces while you're stationary channeling mana. Not to mention how hilariously easy it is to dodge those spellbags.
To examine the most extreme example I'm aware of: Yes, there was an event where Vazra threw 10 death bolts, but we remember that because of what an extraordinary situation that was. To do so, with his already impressive mana reserves, he spent 3 mana potions, burned through 6 mana stones, ate a jar of fiendskap surprise, meditated multiple times and received numerous contributions through mana transfer. Despite all of that, and countless other contributions, we were still overrun in the end. Not to mention the equivalent cost in silver of what we expended could have literally bought us another two combat unit to commit to the fight.
See that's the thing about magic, no matter how much mana you have, it's never enough for a sustained line battle, and that's the side the defenders never see. Perhaps you can deal some massive amount of damage, but once you've done so your contribution to the battle is effectively over. (assuming your spells land, and you ever get them off in the first place) It's like the artillery fire before the infantry attack, yeah you might hunker down and take some damage, but once it's over, it's over.
I'm concerned it's easy to look at magic as a problem when you're on the receiving end of it, but it's functionality is actually extremely limited. Sure, it's devastating in a line battle, for a short while, but once anybody starts moving around or things become a skirmish all the sudden it's worthless. You can't chase somebody with a spell, and once they step outside 5 to 10 feet your odds of actually hitting fall to zero. If a mage pulls an acid bolt and you're in $2000 dollars of armor, you can just take like 3 steps back and the mage is just never going to land that spell. Plus, even if he lands, and follows that up with a shatter bolt which also somehow lands, best case scenario for him is he's blown 7 mana now you're kind of on even footing.
I could address death bolt, but honestly, while this spell is really cool and completely terrifying. It's just not that good. I've said before, death bolt is a willy-coyote method of killing someone, it's completely impractical. If somebody actually gets hit by this, they've earned a mortal wound. As far as I'm aware, a PC has never died to a death bolt. Not once.
I think there are plenty of counters to magic, but being such a "Glass Cannon" role, these counters are generally offensive. For some reason, they sort of go under the radar, but as somebody who casts a lot, let me share some of our deepest fears: Throwing weapons, bows, and cleavers. These suck. I want these to go away just the same way as anybody on the receiving end of magic, but it's easy to look at your natural weakness in this rock paper scissors system and see it as OP.
Also, since I really can't stress this enough: Spellbags are laughably easy to dodge. I practice with these things nearly every day and I still consider my chances of hitting a ready opponent next to none. Especially once there is any distance between us. Yes, push always hits, but it's also Mage's defense. If a warrior charges a mage, the mage isn't going to have a weapon in hand to parry since he's casting. I can see room here to balance things though, maybe a weaver aura which reduces the push effect to a knockback + stagger? But this enters dangerous territory, see once you can outright ignore spells a mage becomes completely defenseless, because casting is their only way to keep an attacker at bay.
Let's say there's a spell block aura in the game, one use, ignores the next spell to hit you. If you're going to fight a mage, there's no way you're not going to put this on. Here's the problem, yes, a mage could blow it with a push, but than what? It's too late, the warrior has already closed the distance, the mage is screwed. Even if he gets another push over before he's pummeled into the ground, what then? Push only buys you enough time to get another 1 or 2 mana spell off. Maybe if he's lucky he can keep his attacker at bay, but that's as far as he's really going to get. You're never going to get one of those larger spells off unless you've primed it way in advance.
I would call for caution tinkering here, because magic is balanced differently than melee combat. A mage's best, and only defense is a good offense. If he can't keep enemies at bay, he stands no chance at all. Once you can ignore spells, even just one, Arcane magic becomes almost inert and worthless, because you only get one spell to save yourself. When you have charging attackers, you don't get a second spell if the first one fails.
-My proposal: I see it reasonable to add a spell ward that reduces the effect of push (since it can't miss), and like Jimmy suggested: allow for a acid/shatter bolt aura to occupy a single slot, but I would again caution against any magical wards beyond that. Acid bolt could perhaps also be altered to deal a set amount of damage to armor, but I would hope it's mana cost would be tweaked to reflect that.
|
|
blueruby
Order of Starkhaven
Plot Staff
Captain Anne Cash
Posts: 924
|
Post by blueruby on May 10, 2016 16:27:18 GMT -5
Drake, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on a lot of these points (these perspectives coming from arguably the second most powerful mage on Mardrun ) I have three PCs: one a melee fighter, one a ranged fighter, and one a mage. I enjoy combat. I like hitting people, I like getting hit. I have fun when I put on armor and run around, and I get to use the skills I've honed over the last almost four years in a competition against another player. To me, magic just isn't as much fun to play with, especially in combat. I'm sure I'm not alone in that. Implying that it can't be (or just isn't) over-powered simply because there aren't a lot of people doing it is, to me, laughable. Some people simply don't want to play mages, and that's fine. You're right, Magic is a support role, just like cleavers, like archers, like pretty much anything that isn't sword and board, and so should be measured accordingly. If I'm alone with my claymore, I'm going to get shredded without a great deal of skill. I may break shields and take some armor with me, but 9 times out of 10, I'm going to lose. As an archer, I'm an even bigger target than as a cleaver, and will often be the first to get run down because I can't do anything against an attacker with a shield, even when I have a shield wall to protect me. As far as being screwed against any number of enemies as a mage, I've personally seen you stand alone against some of the best armored and shielded fighters in our game with no armor, a single sword, and magic, and come out substantially better than would be expected. The magic might not kill them quickly mechanically, but it works wonders at tiring opponents out or opening them up for bigger attacks, or simply giving you a chance to escape. I cannot in good conscience agree with the statement that mages are "defenseless". Mage Armor alone is very powerful, being able to absorb up to any two offensive abilities, including spells and arrows, with no talent whatsoever required to block. Yes they are limited, but there are also no rules against mages wearing armor just like everyone else. They are also realistically the only readily available defense against magic, and are only available to mages. Even while casting, you aren't necessarily defenseless. You could always choose to use a Push or cast a lower cost spell rather than the one you were planning on. Sure, it's not ideal, but compare that to archers: I can't loose an arrow before it's nocked for a reduced effect: it simply won't leave the bow. The Battle of Pyre Hills, the event you're referring to, was an impressive display of magic on Vazra's part. If I remember correctly, though, there was also a weaver on the opposite team, preventing you from shattering shields and melting armor to a degree. There was also the fact that, if I remember correctly, the PCs were outnumbered around 4-to-1, and we still fought them down to seven remaining warriors (out of 60, if memory serves), before the last of us fled or fell. That was far closer to a victory than we realistically deserved, and had those that fled stayed and fought, we very truly could have won that fight. Ten Death Bolts, plus countless other spells, were instrumental in that battle. I think you're severely underestimating the effective range of spell bags. I regularly watch inexperienced mages land spells 15-20 feet away. Yes, they are substantially easier to dodge than say, arrows, but arrows can be blocked. If I'm in a lot of armor, I might be able to dodge an acid bolt (assuming I still have that kind of mobility). This is, of course, assuming you haven't used another low-cost spell (Stun Bolt and Ice Bolt, mainly) to hold me in place to line up your shot, or Push (Which I can't dodge and keeps me unable to strike you on my own as long as you have mana to spend) to tire me out and lower my chances of dodging. I'd also like to point out that if we're in a single sword duel, with just our hits (no armor, no shield), but I'm stuck wearing an extra 30-40 lbs of dead weight, we are absolutely not on even footing. I agree, Death Bolt as an attack is more impractical than anything. However, it's a great way to buy yourself some time to walk away if you get it out. From the outside looking in, a lot of people will make the argument that "He's only got one spell, he can't hit all of us", but that's naive at best. No one wants to be the one hit, so no one presses that advantage. Everyone backs up, afraid of being taken out of the fight in an instant. As an attack, Death Bolt isn't the greatest. As a deterrent, it really can't be beat. Throwing Weapons have about the same effective range as spell balls, but are far easier to block. I would rather take a knife than any spell in the game. Sure it's a quick way to pop a mage armor, assuming you have the skill (in- and out-of-game) to hit a target with them, but the fact they can be blocked be shields or weapons, caught, or simply dodged (and often are), usually means that a mage is only in danger without some kind of ally. Archers as a threat I'll give you, due to their superior range and accuracy. However, a bow can be broken, arrows can be blocked by shields, and archers generally have a harder time competing in close-quarters combat than mages do, so I would honestly put them about on par. If, by the time I can get close enough to you with a cleaver to hit you, break through your mage armor, and cleave you while you're casting, you can't get off a single Push or some other spell to get me away from you, to quote you and your Death Bolt note, you "deserve a mortal wound". Truth be told, I'm perfectly okay with the way magic can ruin people's days in our system. It takes a good chunk of XP to learn Arcane 3, and takes practice to be devastating with it. What we're looking at, however, is providing ways to allow non-mages to not be completely SOL against casters. Casters have Mage Armor to protect them from hits. They will almost always carry a melee weapon to defend themselves or attack if they run out of mana. They have ways of dealing with mundane attacks, so why shouldn't mundane fighters have methods of dealing with magical ones?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2016 16:47:06 GMT -5
It seems to me that from a gameplay balance perspective there is an easy fix to this. Make mage armor only defend against spells (like divine protection only defends against physical) and allow the first level to be cast on others. This mirrors divine magic mechanically, and allows for anyone with a mage friend to block a single spell. I vehemently disagree with Drake where he states that "Once you can ignore spells, even just one, Arcane magic becomes almost inert and worthless, because you only get one spell to save yourself". The primary defensive spell for mages getting rushed is push which can be cast by myself in about one second (and I don't regularly practice arcane magic). This means that even without armor I would expect to be able to get two push spells off before a single opponent can wound me with a sword (as a greater arcane caster I could still do it before they struck me even once). Once a single opponent is pushed, I have the option of stun bolt or ice bolt to immobilize them while I either flee (which I could do directly after the push) or prepare a more powerful offensive spell. In this situation I would still lay odds on the mage against the melee fighter one on one.
|
|
|
Post by Archmage Vazra on May 10, 2016 18:25:02 GMT -5
That sounds like a crippling blow to arcane casters. Not to mention, if you could cast mage armor on others, what would even be the point of the weaver auras? It seems like every rules update there's this big conversation about toning down magic, and everybody who actually plays a mage in combat is left to wonder if that's still going to be a viable option once it's all over. Oddly, I never see somebody claiming that magic is overpowered actually playing a mage in combat. If it's so much cheaper to play and stronger than anything else, why is there a disproportionally small percentage of players using it in combat? This year, I have seen three characters actually throw offensive spells in game, Vazra, Valdus (who is an Archon) and the Red Eyed Syndar. There's a reason for that, magic is at best situationally useful. If it was that good, more people would use it.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect a caster to get multiple push spells off against a charging opponent, and I'm saying that as somebody who has been practicing this nearly every day for years. Anybody who sees me out of game will attest I am nearly always fiddling with mana bands. This just isn't reliable. Even if you did, to what end? Maybe you could get stun / ice bolt them, but in the formers case they're allies will probably just strike them, or they'll just conveniently "randomly stagger" right behind their own line. (Which yes, is total cheese, but happens all the time) and in the case of ice bolt, if you've already popped their protection, and you manage to get the spell off and land it, to what end? so they can be immune to damage until their friends show up?
If you could just put a spell ward against anything up, everybody is going to, and magic will be virtually worthless. As somebody who uses a lot of magic, if you botch the one spell you're realistically going to get off, you're done. They're just going to cleave you into the ground. I don't, as a caster, see much hope winning a fight where everybody can block spells. Is somebody going to make the argument that I am simply incompetent?
|
|
|
Post by Jopper13 on May 10, 2016 19:13:10 GMT -5
Drake, I don't think anyone is insinuating that you are incompetent. On the contrary, you are one of my "test groups" for understanding how magic can be used in the game. You are a very good mage; I've personally watched you hold your own during scenarios at practice and singlehandedly do a lot of damage to groups. I've seen you push/stun/death bolt kill people and just lock them down with push and striking bolts and do a lot of damage. You are good at magic so that is why I value your input as being a bit unique compared to others. And again, this is a discussion and can even be a debate; we don't have to agree with each other and we can throw in our opinions. That is why this process is so useful to balancing game mechanics. I would like everyone to keep in mind the following 2 points: 1) If magic is so great, why aren't there more mages... actually, there would be. This is why our cross class penalty was high but players still tried to cheese it, so we brought in cyphers. Players literally *cannot* take magic unless they are a mage unless they solve an increasingly difficult cypher to learn the magic. I've been told several times by players "I'm going to cross into arcane because its broken/over powered". This was one of my driving factors to limit people taking magic "just cause" and implement blocks, hurtles, and cyphers for them to do so. Also, player choice falls into this heavily that cannot be factored into balancing a mechanic... I know arcane magic is powerful and fun to play, but I prefer non-magic characters. Others feel the same, so the lack of tons of mages is not a great way to gauge a balanced mechanic. 2) I have seen the discussion include a lot of examples (in my opinion summary as well) where we talk about one-on-one balancing or being able to "duel" others on fair grounds. Keep in mind that this is not the intent; I don't really care if a combat mechanic is balanced against any specific enemy or enemy type, I am focusing on its overall impact on the big picture and how it can influence things or be recovered from or pushed to the limits. Yes, a charging warrior may wreck a mage or a mage may wreck a charging warrior... there are too many variables to know for sure. For example, I have had moments where a mage should have flat out killed me but they derped or walked while channeling or made a mistake and it got them killed. I've also seen a warrior hesitate to charge a mage and instead wait for them to pull a spell and then get hit with it. It happens and these variables are too extreme to base a mechanic balance off of. On the flip side of this, saying "their buddies would rush in and get me" or "their buddies would protect them or help them" has some merit, but it has to be taken with a grain of salt. Every aspect of our combat changes in a team dynamic; an archer that squares off against a shield is severely disadvantaged; add in an ally that can keep the enemy shield user at bay and the archer just exponentially became more lethal and useful. Again, these are variables that are hard to factor into balancing because they can wildly vary as well... but we also cannot ignore them because this also looks at the "big picture influence". Again, the intent is overall impact and usefulness combined with a balance that puts it on par with other aspects of the game. Currently, I believe that magic is too powerful if there are no ways to counter or dampen its affects. I think adding in some sort of counter or resistance to magic would balance it out and make it perfect. But I am not sure what that is yet. Also keep in mind that arcane mages do not *have* to be all offensive in our system (but right now their spells niche them into this)... why can't they be defensive too? Currently a mages job is to blow stuff up, why can't mages find a role in protecting people from getting blown up? Sure, anti-magic stuff might make opponents more lethal to a mage... but they could also make a mages role even more critical as they not only can blow up people but they can ward off other magic, protecting their comrades with their own magic. If a mage finds themselves up against an entire squad of baddies with anti-spell auras and thinks that their effectiveness is limited, then why not jump in and use their own anti-magic auras to make sure the enemy can't get the upper hand and then it levels the playing field? I guess I kind of see this as artillery fire, tanks, or snipers in the modern military... if only one side has it, it is immensely devastating to the other side. So you deploy your own defenses to retaliate against enemy artillery, or employ anti-armor weapons to deal with tanks, or use your own marksmen as counter-sniper teams. Summaries and opinions aside, I would love to playtest the following... 1) Change mage armor to magic only and it can be cast on other people. No other changes, just see how it changes stuff during scenario battles at practice. 2) Create a "Ward Shield" spell that has a physical prop that is attached to a shield so it is obvious it is warded. Have it downgrade Push spells from "15 foot knockback and fall down" to "5 feet knockback and stagger" and see how it works. 3) Test an "anti-magic aura" that turns any spell cast on the wielder of the aura into a single damage strike, representing the spells magic being violently dissipated into the air but it kicks like a mule. This aura would last for 1 hour or one day, not sure yet, and doubles all healing times for divine magic being used on the wielder as well. 4) Don't change anything but just add in a new spell, the one we have playtested before, a purple bead necklace that is a "Spell Block" and it simply absorbs the next incoming magic spell. This would round out the Spell block = magic, Protection = physical, Mage Armor = both but is mage only trifecta of basic protection auras. Great discussion everyone. I enjoy that we don't see eye to eye or agree; I think as a society we have lost what it means to debate and agree constructively and that is sad. Keep it flowing but keep it respectful.
|
|
|
Post by Archmage Vazra on May 10, 2016 19:26:05 GMT -5
I could see solution number #2 being workable.
I have mixed feelings regarding proposal #3. My concern is with converting a spell effect to damage is.... so what? Like, taking a hit to your armor doesn't really incapacitate you at all. What's one point of armor to a high level warrior? Unless you're just stuck with it, and I could spam damage you with push, or better put a flare in each hand and that seems like a semi fair trade off. I guess that might be fun? It should still stagger at least, or even then it's going to be pretty harsh for mages.
Solution #1 and #4 are horrifying. I would honestly ask if I could refund my skills if something like that went through. I've kind of explained my reasoning on this in previous posts, but to reiterate if you can just walk around with spell blocks, magic would be severely hindered.
This is always a bit of a frustrating discussion for me, because there are so few arcane casters in the game, fewer still who actually use it in combat, and those don't usually involve themselves during these discussions to advocate for it. I personally think magic is severely overestimated, sure on paper it sounds really bad, but in practice things just aren't that simple.
|
|
Master Artemis
Federation of Architects, Timekeepers Eternal
Posts: 41
|
Post by Master Artemis on May 10, 2016 20:41:11 GMT -5
I am game on adding Wards to the game and maybe a few spells that allow someone else to absorb the damage from the spell when in contact with them. Arcane Resist would be interesting but not sure how it would work as Magic can do so many things. while we are on the arcane subject...maybe we can add some weapon buffs? I really like bless and maybe arcane could get soothing similar lie a scorch or some sort of arcane burst? I do agree with drake though in practice magic is harder to do since you have to plan it out. As a reaction caster using magic is hard to do so id only stick with a few spells in combat like mage armor and push anything else must be planned out. i think if a group of 2 people were to rush a caster that caster would be dead.
|
|
|
Post by ClypeumLegis on May 10, 2016 21:39:39 GMT -5
I've had an idea which combines some of the stuff here with a little new update. What if we added a new spell, called Arcane Ward or something, costs about 3 mana, 1 min RP, and has 2 options for a Mage to choose from in combat ? Option 1: Cast it on another person: After this time and mana cost, they get 1 level of Mage Armor on them, which is fully functional against spells and other attacks, but they can't have any other auras on. Option 2: Cast it on a shield: After said time and mana cost, the shield becomes warded(not sure what to use to represent that, but whatever). It makes any number of Pushes it takes from 15 ft and knockdown into 10 feet and stagger, and can absorb 1 shatter bolt completely, but that breaks the ward down. It would last for 1 day.
Both of the options would be available to mages to use in combat, it's put to them to decide which is the most valuable in the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by ClypeumLegis on May 10, 2016 21:40:38 GMT -5
Oh, slight addendum: the ward on a shield would not break with physical attacks or cleaves. It would be magic only.
|
|
|
Post by Archmage Vazra on May 10, 2016 21:43:04 GMT -5
Option 2 (of Ian's suggestions) seems a reasonable compromise and is the sort of change I could support. Option 1 on the other hand... I respectfully disagree, as I believe this would be devastating to offensive casters.
|
|
|
Post by ClypeumLegis on May 10, 2016 23:28:26 GMT -5
I think that the first option wouldn't be that bad for offensive casters, simply because the shield is also broken by melee attacks and arrows, so it is likely going to be broken before it ever gets to a Mage, given that mages generally do not go outside of a group. However, it does give the potential protection from magic to others, which I think is what we are primarily looking for. Not something totally definite that would nerf all magic, but something with the potential to protect from magic that doesn't necessarily have to.
|
|
|
Post by Jopper13 on May 11, 2016 6:03:44 GMT -5
Lex, also consider that anybody being rushed by two people could very well be dead. As an armored shield and sword fighter, if I get hit with 2 players at once and they work together, I am usually having a tough time trying to get out of it. Our system favors outnumbering and flanking your opponent, which makes it immensely tough should the odds be stacked. In Belegarth, I have seen fighters take on 15-20 people before they die... one at a time. Because all they need is 2-3 fast shots on their opponent to kill them, they usually try to focus on a single opponent, kill them, and then move on. We can't really do that in Last Hope when any given player normally has 2-3 hits, 1-3 points of armor, and then wounds after that. Even unarmored opponents take a bit to hack through. So while I completely agree with you that if a mage finds themselves outnumbered then they are usually dead... but I also see this happening with anybody (shields, cleavers, archers, etc) or at least most of the time. Drake, keep in mind this isn't just about the balance of what PC arcane casters can do to NPCs in the game; this is about magic as a whole, so this heavily influences the magic that NPCs can throw at the PC group too. Drake, I guess I am not sure why you feel that adding a single spell block or allowing mage armor to be cast on others is so game breaking? If everyone can cross-class into magic (which is a possibly, slowed down by RP cyphers and such) then theoretically players can just Arcane 1 and cast mage armor on themselves. They don't even need a mage to do it for them. Honestly, I see this being a larger deterrent for arrows more so than spells. I've seen you take a club and a shield and run around at practice with Arcane 1, putting up a few mage armors on yourself. Sometimes it soaks up an arrow and then you run off and reapply it. Couldn't this be another level of the tactics of a fight... to actively take down the magic defenses with push or striking bolts in order to open up the way for larger stuff? On the subject of auras, I think that without further balancing, the ability for a mage to cast Mage Armor 2 times on themselves and absorb the next physical OR magic attack is really powerful. A Mage literally doesn't have to worry no matter what is thrown at them (except for some traps like the Jaw Trap or poison on daggers) or if a mage throws a death bolt at them. No one else in the game need not worry like this and it really makes no sense that if we have Mage Armor for mages, why can't this be shared to others? Originally in the rules it was going to be shareable, but it was decided to keep in Mage only for balancing. When we expanded and added a 2nd level mage armor and 2nd level of protection, we didn't know how it would trickle through the game. I was in favor of a bit more defensive ways to survive, but I didn't know how it would impact the gap between mages and non-mages. I'm strongly in favor of opening up Mage Armor to be shared to others or adding in a purple spell block aura. How this differs from the Weaver auras is because the Weaver auras have been woven to specifically defend against a single type of spell; with a spell aura, you could cast Push to pop the aura and then shatter bolt to break a shield... but with the Weaver aura (red necklace) nothing can take down that defensive aura unless it is a red spell. It leaves the target vulnerable to other spells, but it protects them against specific magic. While a spell block spell might protect you from everything, a single low level spell could take down the defense and leave you vulnerable afterwards. I also disagree that auras cast on others should still make them stagger or knockback; if it is a single time use spell like mage armor, there is no current stagger or knockback with that so I would want it to mirror it. Now, if it is an aura that does not "pop" with a single spell, like a ward that reduces the effect of Push for 1 hour, then yes I could see it still having some sort of physical effect since you are redirecting or diverting energy instead of absorbing and diffusing it. Let me spell out 2 scenarios for you guys to consider. In both of these scenarios, assume we are going with the Option #4: Purple spell block aura, absorbs the next offensive spell, can be cast on others. Scenario 1A group of adventurers consisting of a few mages and a mix of others comes across a band of mercenaries on the road. They are well equipped with shields, weapons, and armor... but glistening in the light around each of them is a purplish aura. Based on their equipment, their demeanor, and the fact that they had arcane casters prepare anti-magic auras for each of them means that they are probably not here to talk and they know that your group employs mages... they are ready to face you and intended to take away your arcane advantage. They move in to close distance and the battle begins. Normally, the mages could thin the line quickly with a few shatter or death bolts, but that powerful magic would be wasted since they are currently protected. With your magic hindered initially, you need a plan. You quickly devise a plan where the mages will move forward with your shield line and attempt to throw low level striking bolts or push spells in order to take down as many spell block auras as possible, leaving them vulnerable to the more powerful spells. This is doable and will take some time and teamwork, so you hope your small shield wall can hold out long enough for your mages to do deal with their anti-magic in order to turn the tide as you bring your full magic to bear. *** Scenario 2You are part of an adventuring group that has been tasked with destroying a corruption idol. A scout has been sent ahead, and apparently this is no ordinary site... while a shaman seems to be controlling the magic in the site, they appear to have multiple shaman also guarding it, making it very dangerous. Your fighters are going to be no match for their magic if they unleash it right away, so you devise a plan. Before the battle, your Arcane casters will apply Spell Blocks to every fighter, hoping that this will allow them to absorb some punishment thrown their way by the shamans. You also know that the Shamans will have their own arcane defenses, so your mages split into 2 small groups; one group will focus on supporting the fighters to throw spells to take down their mage armor and spell blocking auras, the other group will stay in reserve and focus on reapplying spell blocking auras should the fighters need to retreat after the initial fight. You know that your warriors will be shredded by enemy magic if your mages can't help them counter this, so the group agrees that focusing on countering the enemy magic is the best course of action. *** I invite everyone to really consider those two possibilities... I think they both sound fun as hell and provide a challenge to the group that is unique. In the first one, the group is caught off guard by an enemy that appears to have done their homework and prepared ahead of time. Without a plan to deal with it, they are sure to fail... and the "glass cannon" role of the mage changes into a strategic combat puzzle; the removal of anti-magic auras in order to bring back the effectiveness of their spells. The second scenario you see the roles reversed; the players are the ones that can prepare ahead of time to deal with enemy magic, making the arcane casters less about walking in and blowing stuff up and more about providing a slightly different support role; protecting their allies with auras to help soften the impact of enemy magic. I believe this... - Falls in line with how we do our magic in the Last Hope system
- Adds another level of utility to arcane casters
- Makes sense in our lore with how magic is done and handled, or how it could have evolved over the millenia by casters
- Balances out arcane magic a bit more; reduces their initial encounter-controlling power but adds more defensive utility, favoring the more "drawn out/endurance based" fighting/combat system that is currently in the Last Hope system
- Changes the "big picture" imprint of arcane magic on any given event or encounter more favorably
- Changes the "solo/duel" method in which arcane magic is used, which unfortunately is harsh to the caster but does follow our rock/paper/scissors system better because there is a strong counter to it, but as stated balancing the "arcane magic needs to be fair in a one-vs-one fight" was never the intention of this discussion, similar to how "melee combat needs to be fair in a one-vs-one fight" against arcane is currently not considered priority.
EDIT: I wanted to throw in another perspective when we talk about balancing... try to look at a fight from a Cleric's eyes. We talk about warriors holding their own or mages holding their own... what about a Cleric? If we follow the line of reasoning that "a warrior should be able to take down a mage" or "a mage should be able to take down a warrior" then try to walk a mile in a Cleric's shoes. All they can do is hope they had a Protection spell up, possibly Flare you a few times to knock you back a little bit, or Sanctuary themselves and hope help arrives. Without melee fighting skills and armor, a Cleric is *completely* outpaced by warriors AND mages... so keep that in mind. However, clerics can be instrumental AFTER the fight, which means their "imprint" on the game world is important balanced. Try to remember than line of reasoning as we examine Arcane Magic; try to distance yourself from how it impacts any singular fight and instead how it can impact larger encounters or the game as a whole.
|
|