|
Post by Jopper13 on Jul 13, 2017 15:20:02 GMT -5
July 12th Playtest Info
1) Pierce (Skill) Same rules as previous playtesting. Small weapon only, Wind up, announce pierce, if attack hits it bypasses armor. FEEDBACK: This again playtested very well and I was actually victim to a perfect use of this. During a fight, I had my shield destroyed and I was about to be surrounded. An opponent hit me with a Pierce (bypassing my armor) and then I tried to run away to target their lone archer. I was hit multiple times and he Pierce'd me again (dropping me to 0 hit points) and then I turned and tried to run and escape. I was thinking about how to get back to my team when my opponent attacked high with a sword and I parried high to stop it right when he announced "Pierce" and got me in the torso. I was already wounded and my hits were gone, so it cut me down with a mortal wound. I still had 2 points of armor left. This feels right and I am heavily in favor of bringing it in.
2) Pull Arrow (Skill) For the playtest, you may pull an arrow from any location regardless of armor/padding worn. FEEDBACK: Played well again, the lightly armored cleavers enjoyed being able to not be devastated so easily by archers. This is playtesting well.
3) New Armor Counts This is a passive playtest, but we are going to try implementing one of the new armor calculation systems and see how it goes. This will slightly alter your armor points for the practice. Please get an armor count before you enter the field. The exact calculation system is not available now, but the gist of it is “if you want more armor points, cover more of your body in armor”. FEEDBACK: We don't have the exact calculations down yet but I used the most recent one that I made. It seems to calculate out well; my armor went from 10 points to 9 and another player went from 5 points to 5 points... so no change... and another player went from 3 points to 2 points due to their armor. We tried a method where "you round up to the first 1 armor point" meaning that simple bracers or some lighter leathers will round up to a single point of armor even if you don't have enough to make it count. It seemed to work ok, but needs some more serious calculations. The fear of armor "being heavily nerfed" I don't think is an issue, but it will probably drop some people's points down a few unless they do some upgrades to coverage and adjacent joints (elbows, knees, hands, feet, etc)
4) Dispel Bolt (new spell / skill) Purple spell bolt, 3 mana. When thrown and hits a target, target staggers and target loses any primed spells held OR is drained of 10 mana. Cannot be absorbed by mage armor. Does no other effects (no secondary effects like Shatter/Acid) FEEDBACK: We tried this again but nobody really used it. Granted we had some new mages so they were not comfortable with magic like some other players are. I still think it has some viable options, but I'm not sure if this spell will work out. The mages from last night's playtest did a really good job staying in their shield walls and staying with buddies, so it would have been tough to hit them with the purple spell bolts. Worth another playtest, but not sure if its viable.
5) Modified Bolts (Shatter, Acid, Death) (Spells) For this playtest, we want to try tweaking the Bolt spells for mages. Shatter Bolt will remain change to 2 mana but it will do 3 Cleave Damage to a shield instead of blow it up in a single hit. Secondary effect (1 damage) remains if no shield) Acid Bolt will remain at 4 mana but it will do 10 points of Armor Damage instead of instantly melting all armor. Secondary effect (1 damage) remains if no shield) Death Bolt’s mana cost will be reduced to 7 instead of 8 and instead of inflicting a single mortal wound, it will instead inflict 2 light wounds to the target; a light wound to the arm and leg closest to the location struck. No other changes with the spell. FEEDBACK: I absolutely LOVED this change to the bolts. It's a bit of a Catch 22; more devastating and more costly magic means that there will be less magic used on the field, but less powerful and cheaper magic means that mages can still make a solid impact and also cast more bolts but it isn't quite so devastating to your opponents. Shatter Bolt felt right at 3 cleave damage, it could even be 4 cleave damage, so that the only way to save your shield is to either have a large shield reinforced before a battle or take Shield Expert. This means no shield can survive 2 shatter bolts, but every shield is sufficiently damaged after 1 (which then makes them much easier to break with an allied cleaving partner). I would recommend 2 mana for 3 cleaves or remain at 3 mana for 4 cleaves. Acid bolt wasn't used, but the 10 armor melt feels fair. I would say 80-90% of the players in our game are 10 or less armor, meaning that an Acid bolt will be devastating to almost every opponent you hit with it except for the small percentage of people in heavier armor. Death Bolts double wounds worked amazingly well. I am convinced that this is the best way to tone down but still make death bolt very effective. I was victim to Death Bolt 2 times last night and another player was victim of it 2 times as well. The mage who tried to use the death bolts never missed with a single bolt, so the ability to show a consistent impact with the spell was thoroughly proven. Both times I knew that if I was hit with it, I was in trouble.... but I could drag my sorry carcass around and try to help protect an archer or another fighter but I was basically combat ineffective. It made Death Bolt change from a "one shot, drop you" to a "one shot, your messed up but you can still participate or limp away". It felt right and it also made Death Bolt fun... you get mangled but you can try to carry on. I felt like this really kept the "impact" of death bolt but toned down the lethality/finality of it.
|
|
|
Post by Archmage Vazra on Jul 13, 2017 18:04:11 GMT -5
Okay, so let me get this straight: striking bolt would become the only spell that can actually down an opponent... And even if I do catch somebody with a deathbolt, they can just stand in the way of my other spells until somebody gives them first aid? And deathbolt doesnt damage armor/hits, so this effectively gets the mage nowhere. Am I going to spend another 7 mana to deathbolt them again? I have to do it twice now, and they still might not be mortal!
|
|
|
Post by Aifric Camden on Jul 13, 2017 18:49:32 GMT -5
you realize you're talking about making a death bolt's damage comparable to that of a mere arrow... i can't imagine a scenario where it would ever be more tactically advantageous to throw a light-wound bolt (which is a short-range, deliberately difficult-to-use thrown weapon, which requires you to spend a very limited resource to use, and you have to stand completely defenseless for several seconds while doing so) at someone vs. simply shooting them with an arrow. nevermind that archery is a 0 xp skill, whereas arcane 3 costs dozens of xp bare minimum, and currently only some the game's most dedicated players even have the skill... and only 1 regularly uses it.
on that note, if arcane magic is so overpowered, then why is it so rare? in my opinion this is probably because combat magic is already challenging to use for most players. and it should be! but if i were a new player looking at the rulebook, and thinking about making a mage, and i saw that the most powerful spell in the game wasn't even as good as a simple arrow, i would never seriously consider making an arcane caster.
|
|
|
Post by Jopper13 on Jul 13, 2017 20:54:40 GMT -5
I recommend both of you read through the death mechanics we play tested. It did not do the damage of a single arrow; it appears that you may have misunderstood the details.
The playtest Death Bolt goes through shields, it delivers TWO wounds (basically crippling half of the body of the target) which also means if they are already wounded in one of those it inflicts a mortal wound, and protection spells can't absorb it, and you can't use pull arrow on a death bolt wound.
Arrows are soaked by protection spells, blocked consistently by shields, deal a single light wound, only upgrade a torso wound to mortal and not the limbs, and pull arrow specifically counters it.
Although they both inflict wounds (in this playtest) I think that is clear proof that they are vastly different.
As for a death bolted person standing in the way of other spells... I'm not sure what you mean by that? How is that relevant?
And correct, you would need to resort to weapons that damage them (striking bolts, melee weapons, etc) or death bolt them again. Either way, the target has been crippled and made combat ineffective, which I believe is the overall intent of the spell of death bolt. Yes it does downgrade the lethality a touch but the impact is still really heavy.
It also brings death bolt a bit more in balance with every other weapon system in the game, meanin g that nothing takes a target straight to mortal wounds, which I believe fits our "endurance" based system real well.
|
|
|
Post by Archmage Vazra on Jul 13, 2017 22:09:26 GMT -5
I don't think we misunderstood anything. Two wounds doesn't actually progress towards killing an opponent who still has an armor and hit pool, Archery progresses to hits and can kill pretty quick through torso wounds, am I expected to deathbolt somebody twice now? Whats the point if I have to follow with up to 20 striking bolts? And dealing a second wound hardly outweighs the numerous benefits of archery, let alone everything it takes to actually land spell. An archer can skirmish, a warrior can skirmish, but because of the limitations of magic, a mage doesn't have that ability, and being able to hit through a shield only barely offsets the limited range and accuracy. Compare the number of wounds recieved in combat between all other styles and magic and it should be rapidly apparent that it is already the inferior option. I can make a highly effective warrior, who also arches, and still have left over starting exp, and I'd probably be more dangerous. There should be some kind of payoff for the tremendous amount of exp magic requires, and the difficulty landing spells.
Magic has it's niche, and in that niche, yes - it can occasionally be devastating, but these proposed changes are threatening to take away. I'm getting the feeling our frustration in this dialogue is not entirely understood, but the value of a commited mage remains more delicate then many would realize, and I feel we're under represented in this discussion.
By the way, not speaking to balance here, but a personal story: Years and years ago, before Last Hope as we know it today, before nearly anybody today played. I remember reading an early version of the rules while "RQ" and "LZ" gossiped about this awesome idea "Kerrik" had. I remember reading the magic system, and going most of my army enlistment knowing I wanted to come back and play someday, and I wanted 3rd level Arcane - because deathbolt was fucking awesome.
|
|
|
Post by Aifric Camden on Jul 14, 2017 11:36:49 GMT -5
no, i understood it. i didn't say a light-wound bolt was identical to an arrow, i said it was comparable. it should not be comparable/balanced with "other combat styles." it should be clearly more powerful, in my opinion, as it has always been. the trade-off is that it is expensive and difficult to use, and requires a large amount of specialization and xp.
in game design there's something called "perfect imbalance." not every combat option should be exactly as good as every other. this creates a "metagame," where players have to either spend resources/effort to get the more powerful combat options, paying some sort of trade-off in the process, or strive to develop creative strategies to counter them. it also allows the game's mechanics to adapt to different play styles. part of the attraction of last hope is that all 4 classes feature a very distinctive style of playing the game... if all the combat styles are identical in effectiveness, then it's not as rewarding to chose one over the other. if you've ever played competitive pokemon, fighting games, or overwatch, or chess pieces, you can see other examples of how asymmetrical design rewards player choices... it's what's kept those games going for so many years. it's what makes chess more interesting than checkers. in my opinion this has also always been one of last hope gameplay's biggest strengths.
now obviously, if one combat option were grossly overpowered, to the point that you basically had to use it to be competitive, then that would be a problem, and something worth cutting down. in competitive pokemon, fighting games, etc., this is handled by something called "usage tiers." if a pokemon is used too frequently, it is deemed overpowered for its current tier and bumped up to the next. if it's under-used, it gets bumped down to a weaker tier. last hope, of course, is different in that it only has a single tier to work with, so buffing/nerfing various combat options is the only way to correct imbalance. but death bolts are clearly not overpowered. as i've said in previous posts, if they were, everyone would be using them.
|
|
blueruby
Order of Starkhaven
Plot Staff
Captain Anne Cash
Posts: 924
|
Post by blueruby on Jul 14, 2017 11:54:38 GMT -5
It's true that perfect imbalance encourages players to find ways to use the mechanics at their disposal to counter more powerful abilities. The issue with that in last hope is that magic doesn't really have that many counters mechanically. The only ones that exist in game are magic themselves. We are looking at ways to use existing mechanics to allow players to counter magic, or introducing new ways to bring magic closer in line with other styles. It is still incredibly powerful: as a warrior, I would LOVE an ability that would let me instantly break my enemy's shield in combat, even if I could only use it once a day. 10 points of armor in an instant would be a godsend. Instead, I have to put myself within range of my opponent to chew through their armor and hits, getting around their shield and any magical protections while trying not to let them do the same to me. I continue to disagree with the unreliability of spell bolts: we had a brand new mage at practice on Wednesday, and once he got his arm warmed up, he missed maybe 1 in 5 shots, including a few death bolts. He was always 10-15 feet away or more to avoid getting hit himself. And once again, if I was trying to "win" in last hope, I would play a mage, but that's not the story I want to tell with my PCs. I don't enjoy magic as much as I enjoy closing into melee and competing. I know I'm not alone in that, either. In that regard, I cannot and will not accept the argument that "everyone would throw death bolts if they were so overpowered".
|
|
|
Post by Archmage Vazra on Jul 14, 2017 12:16:23 GMT -5
There are plenty of effective counters to magic, but thus far the game has been wisely designed to limit their availability to line fighters. Mages are supposed to be the paper to that rock. Why does rock need more counters to paper? That's why we have Scissors! (Archery, throwing weapons, skirmishers)
Sadie, in 4 years of playing, I cannot recall a single time I've hit you with a 3rd level spell. I don't think it's ever happened, and kudos to you, because I've sure tried. Clearly what you are doing, arching and skirmishing, serves you well in this regard, and is a reliable counter-strategy to magic.
Magic functions as a glass cannon, an artillery battery that requires infantry to defend and employ. Unlike warriors, mages can do next to nothing alone. Focusing only on the damage potentially possible, and not it's function within a team, is really going to lead this conversation astray. We're comparing apples to oranges here. You're trying to reduce magics advantages without acknowledging it's disadvantages. I'm sure a warrior would love the ability to do this massive amount of damage, but they instead gain the benefits of mobility, defense, endurance, reliability, and sustainability - those are tradeoffs that are important to any game.
Perhaps instead of trying to disrupt this system of strengths and weaknesses, you should instead work on defining them more clearly. Jeff made the suggestion arrows could cause struck primed spells to prematurely detonate. Unlike the other suggestions, this isn't dismissing the one strength mages do have, and is instead serving the metagame of Last Hope.
|
|
|
Post by Aifric Camden on Jul 14, 2017 12:57:35 GMT -5
no, magic doesn't have many direct mechanical counters, that is true. you may not be "playing to win," but you can't deny that armored warriors have some considerable advantages in this game, namely, tactical versatility. they can effectively participate in every single combat scenario. a character who only uses arcane magic has to run away or hide from most of them, because without the support of other fighters, or an advantageous position, they're not much of a threat. and i think that's ok! its a different play style. but i find it hard to believe anyone who's "playing to win" would choose arcane magic by default.
imagine if we did a mages vs. fighters scenario at practice where everyone pairs off in close-quarter 1v1's. everyone would have the same amount of xp worth of skills. mages can't use weapons and fighters can't use magic. then we'd be able to see who has a tactical advantage in that case. clearly, the fighters would dominate. and no, this scenario wouldn't be normal for practice, but it is a common scenario in the actual game, which is what we're really talking about. the all-out battles of combat practice are not the game of last hope itself.
|
|
|
Post by Jopper13 on Jul 14, 2017 14:51:40 GMT -5
I am still convinced that allowing magic to be "heavily impacting" but reducing "lethality" does not in any way, shape, or form break its effectiveness. Most of the weapon systems in our game are designed behind making someone combat ineffective before killing them. This is why we actively chose NOT to have instant-kill melee attacks. If Death Bolt can drop someone with a single blow, why can't rogues do it by using a "Sneak Attack" that drops someone? Why can't a fighter use a "Power Strike" to land a crushing blow on someone and take them out of the fight in a single mighty blow? This is because dropping an opponent entirely out of the fight in one attack, regardless of that attacks cost, is not the direction we decided to go with Last Hope 6 years ago. It was more about a prolonged fight and how things impact that. We decided not to add in the Backstabs and the Critical Strikes that drop opponents and instead tried to make it a magic only thing. So after years of seeing how this can impact combat (both practice and events) I strongly feel like single-shot attacks are not good for the Last Hope combat system.
Archery is actually NOT very lethal. Punching holes in people with arrows does not lead to a lot of deaths by arrows. What it does, is it hampers your opponents ability to fight... it starts wounding them so they stop moving around as much, they stop being able to swing weapons effectively, or they have to drop their shields. Even Jeff, who is probably our best archer in this game, doesn't kill nearly as many people with archery as melee weapons do. The game is designed this way for a reason.
I think we have a fairly circular argument going on about balancing magic. "Balance" has nothing to do with "Could a Mage 1v1 a fighter?". If you guys read back through this discussion and the 7 pages of "Counter Spell Magic" thread in this same forum, you will see me bring it up time and time again... this is not World of Warcraft where things need to be balanced for PVP encounters where 1 person takes on 1 person. Arcane magic never had this requirement that you *HAD* to be a single-shot killer of an opponent... the usefulness of Arcane magic is not lethality but in overall impact. Softening up shields, armor, locking people in stun/ice bolts, pushing people out of shield walls or blasting them away, or hitting them hard with whatever version of death bolt we end up keeping... there are lots of ways for Arcane magic to be USEFUL without requiring arcane magic to be LETHAL.
This last practice, I wrecked a mage because I took my "mage hunter" loadout as a warrior... I added a few holders to my belt and put 2 throwing knives and 2 throwing axes on it. If they stood and waited for me to get within 10 feet to push me, I stood at 12 feet and pelted them with throwing weapons. If they primed a spell and walked forward knowing that I can't rush them, I stepped backwards and pelted them with knives. I was popping mage armors left and right and forcing them to take that damage or fizzle their spell and dodge/run away. I was a STRONG rock to their scissors... almost laughably so... but nothing I did could devastate them in a single hit. The mage had plenty of time to decide whether to stay, run, try to endure it, hope I missed, etc. This is some of the balancing I am specifically looking at; nothing says any of these spells need to be lethal and drop people in single hits, but they need to be meaningful and make an impact. Let me tell you, that same mage nailed me with 2 death bolts with the new rules... and although I didn't die, I was now a slow-moving-unable-to-fight-barely-able-to-help liability or resource drain for my team.
Years ago I used to playtest and practice as an "arcane knight". I would take a decent amount (4-8 pts) of armor, a two handed weapon, and decked out arcane magic. Right now a lot of our mages focus on being lightly armored/armed mages, more traditional to to trope, but the ability to be a blending is very real. I don't always play a warrior... when I playtested this build it was broken as all hell. Being able to run around, push people, cleave others, absorb damage and arrows with mage armor, drop shatter bolts on shields or melt armor, AND still be able to be a full mobile cleaving fighter... it was broken. I could wade into a fight with a mage armor (we didn't have 2 layers of it back then... which now would make it even worse) and start off with a shatter/acid/death bolt and then immediately go into a whirl of cleaving attacks. I imagined the Syndar using this kind of fighting technique for their warriors; arcane and martial skills mixed together. Also, let me tell you that being a mage and a 9 foot spearmen is awesome... I can walk behind a line with a shatter bolt, blow up a shield, them immediately start stabbing at my hapless victim because he can't block my shots as much. There are numerous play styles that are DEVASTATING and out of balance when used properly. I've playtested a number of them.
I've broken shields with shatter bolt and them stabbed them to death from behind a wall.
I've melted armor with an acid bolt and then cleave-locked them to the ground because their heavy armor now does nothing but hinder them.
I've dropped people with death bolt and then forced their allies to make mistakes coming to save them because they are now a bleeding-out liability.
I've locked people down in an ice bolt and then easily spooled up a death bolt so that the moment they unfreeze, they get a one-shot mortal wound because I'm literally at blank blank range.
I've used push to knock people down and then just immediately charge them with cleave attacks before they can effectively recover.
There are TONS of play styles and combos that can be used by arcane magic. "Taking on people 1 v 1" was never meant to be part of that balance. Also, the argument that "I would need to throw 20 striking bolts or a 2nd death bolt to effectively kill an opponent" is the wrong way to look at it. For example, look at divine magic. They literally *CANT* use their magic to kill anyone. Their magic is not designed that way... nothing does damage. So they will have to resort to other weapons to finish off an opponent. I am guessing the knee-jerk reaction to that statement is probably "Well yeah, it's divine magic, it isn't suppose to kill people, it has a different type of functionality". How do we know Arcane magic isn't supposed to function in this same way? If Arcane magic is the manipulation of force, where in this does it *require* Arcane magic to be overly lethal? It's Arcane Magic, it is not Killing Magic... and I think we should treat it as such.
PS: In the scenario of an entire mage vs fighter, it all depends on variables, because I don't know how a "mages vs fighters, close quarters only, 1v1, mages don't get weapons, fighters get weapons" type of setup proves/solves anything. Do we do the same thing with divine casters? Archers? Throwing weapons? Highly contained and orchestrated fights like this are not a good way to look at the overall *IMPACT* of a skill/combat style/magic school. If this were the case, if we tested out the "potential" of a weapon like this, then a 9 foot spear would be utterly useless. I don't even know how many times I can barely just defend myself from death 1v1 with my 9 foot spear. However... put me in a shield wall and I begin to *MURDER* the opposing team. A 9 foot spear is almost laughably overpowered in that instance. I still can't one-shot enemies, but chipping away from them from 10 feet away so they can't counter attack me and I open up avenues of attack for my allies is devastating. I don't see why arcane magic can't be the same thing... hard to use solo, devastating/impactful in a team format. (And again, note I said devastating/impactful... NOT lethal)
Another angle that I really want you guys to look at is the actual events we run. It is very common for our NPCs/monsters to be outnumbered and overwhelmed. Changing Death Bolt reduces the chance to instantly crush opposition which means it is easier to make meaningful experiences for both the PCs and the NPCs. One of the reasons why all of the greater undead were so strong is that they couldn't be one-shotted with death bolts. One of the reasons why mordok regularly have rage is because of death bolt and being taken down so quickly by organized teams. As someone who tries to balance encounters for the game, Arcane magic is literally the single biggest impact in whether an encounter is challenging or not for either side involved. This speaks volumes and I feel like it is a very good metric to analyze and honestly I think it is WAY more important than "Is this fair/powerful enough".
"Is this fun/balanced" and "Does this add to the experience of the LARP" are strong points of consideration for me.
|
|
|
Post by Archmage Vazra on Jul 14, 2017 15:37:53 GMT -5
What your describing is reducing magic to a sub-par debuff, that utterly breaks its effectiveness to anybody relying on it as a weapon. What use is a weapon I can't actually defeat an opponent with? Now if your suggestion is to respecialize, to not use it as a primary weapon, I'd have to ask; are you going to refund the hundreds of exp which made that possible?
By the way, I am utterly astounded somebody managed to deathbolt you twice at practice. Seriously, that's usually next to impossible. Did you take less measures to avoid it because it was less dangerous? I can count on one hand the number of times I've pulled that off, over years of attempts. That suggests to me, that under these proposed changes, people don't take magic as seriously a threat.
Incidentally, in the same paragraph you describe in detail your self-admitted highly effective "mage hunter" loadout. How is not a valid counter? In your own words you say you wrecked the mage. You describe it as a strong rock to their scissors, "almost laughably so" I don't understand how you can say that, and then claim there aren't viable counters to magic. You just boasted about one!
To be honest, I'm hearing a lot of points repeated as if they were now counter-arguments. No, things don't have to be perfectly balanced, that's kind of what me and I think Evelyn are getting at. Magic can contribute a lot of firepower to a team, but all that power is still a product of a team, not a single overpowered character. A melee combabant might not be able to replicate that kind of damage (at least not in the short, short term), but their strengths lie elsewhere, and if a mage does have that devastating impact, it's only because an effective team of warriors made it possible. Besides, in the long run, a mage is going to run out of mana, and looking at a prolonged battle, those line warriors are going to end up doing more anyways.
What I'm hearing being suggested, is taking away magics strengths, because in it's niche it exceeds styles that specialize elsewhere, and leaving it with all the weaknesses that mages trade for that limited firepower. That is not even to speak of the enourmous investment focusing on magic requires, should their not be a payoff for the years it takes advancing the skill?
|
|
|
Post by Jopper13 on Jul 14, 2017 20:23:07 GMT -5
I guess if we are going to look that deep into counterpoints then I could clarify.
My statement about doing a mage hunter role was not in favor of showing that arcane magic is balanced and has strong counters.
What I meant was that when a brand new mage trying arcane was up against me in a more duel/ 1v1 scenario (it was 3 vs 3 recycler and the rest of our teams were engaged nearby) that yes, I was able to play that mage with throwing weapons because I knew how to use them and they were new and the situation was just right.
Yes. I pelted him with throwing weapons, it being almost laughably effective because he didn't do anything in return. What I failed to mention is that even in this prime situation, I STILL didn't take the mage down. All I did was drop some mage armor and do a bit point of damage.
As I already pointed out (did you read the 2nd half of that comment in my post?) that even though I was a strong counter, I STILL couldn't have the same devastating effect as a regular arcane mage. I disagree with your assessment that because I can toss throwing knives at a mage that this somehow negates the powerful nature of arcane magic. That is like saying archers are a way to counter arcane magic so it justifies the power of their spells that can kill other people. Well... no... I disagree with that.
Btw, just because something is powerful doesn't mean everyone is going to take it. I chose not to make am arcane caster because it was my play style. There are a lot of people in our game that just don't like magic. Period. They know it is powerful, they just don't want to do it.
Given that Last Hope is aiming for a lower fantasy setting, a lot of work for a limited magic system is actually part of our goals. There isn't supposed to be this uber magic potential regardless of exp cost or time involved... it's a niche for characters to play, yes, but it will never be overly powerful like magic is in some games / movies/ etc.
I'm still standing firm on my opinion that arcane magic dies not need to be lethal to be effective.
Btw, we've always allowed respecing some skills based on rules changes so that is always an option to some degree. But it seems a bit of an overreaction to say that these changes would completely nerf and make useless arcane magic and therefore render casters obsolete.
|
|
|
Post by Aifric Camden on Jul 14, 2017 21:50:12 GMT -5
@ryan the hypothetical scenario i suggested was just meant to point out that there's plenty of situations in the real game that arcane casters aren't very effective, since i keep getting the impression that some people seem to believe mages are somehow invincible or dominate the game. it wasn't a serious suggestion. but perhaps i don't understand the real concern.
i have to ask, if this doesn't have anything to do with PvP, then what does this have to do with? is it because of PC's death-bolting mordok and breezing through the danger to easily? if that's the problem, then why not just give the mordok more mages and mage armor? or perhaps the concern is that other players feel high-level mages are making too big an impact against npc's, diminishing their own efforts? if that's the case, are you sure the roleplayed bravado of the current mage characters in question doesn't have more to do with that?
"I don't see why arcane magic can't be the same thing... hard to use solo, devastating/impactful in a team format" this is exactly what i think it should be, that's my main point. i just don't think a light-wound bolt has the capacity to be very devastating/impactful when compared to other options in the game. also, why would they call it a death-bolt if it's nonlethal... haha
in any case, i don't have much personal stake in this, since i don't even play an arcane caster, i just wanted to get my two cents in about how i think this might alter the game.
|
|
|
Post by natukie84 on Jul 14, 2017 22:54:29 GMT -5
This thread is in reference to the play testing experiment to the tweaks to the spell bolts from last practice 7-12. I was not able to play test the dispel bolt. However I like the idea in that the bolt is separate from the spell list, in that it is in is own category. As far as the other tweaks to the bolts, I found them interesting. I like the magic side of the Last Hope and I felt it doesn't need "tweaking." So I was skeptical, but when I played with the bolts, the more I saw why the heralds felt the change was needed. Right now with the spells as they are, they are overpowered. Shatter bolt destroys any current shield, acid bolt melts all armor and death puts you at the River Styx. These were the three main ones being play tested. For example: when a PC comes forward with 18 points of armor and gets destroyed by a "current" acid bolt. If the PC survives the battle, he is left with a huge bill for repairs. So with the "tweak" the PC looses 10 points and still in the fight. The mage has to put more effort and skill to hit the PC again to finish the rest of his armor. So essential it does reduce the power of the bolts, but you are giving the the other players a chance to survive the fight. My only concern is that it becomes a trust issue with the honor system with these changes. Adding a more complex change, we rely more on the the targeted player to know the number of hits left to there shield and points to armor. On the other hand, when you think about it the "tweaks" bolts still do the same damage as the original bolts to beginner and average players. Its the expert players whole have the chance to survive and keep in the fight. So overall the tweaks offer up a good challenge for a mage. The Dispel bolt looks awesome, but I feel it might be over powered. I would only accept it, if the cost to acquire it is high. Instead of calling it "death bolt" lets call it "Dark Bolt." It does two wounds around the hit location, instead of down and dying. More chances for a PC to survive a fight. I think is is good change if it happens.
|
|
|
Post by Archmage Vazra on Jul 15, 2017 19:28:41 GMT -5
I did read your whole post Ryan, and I felt my point stood. I am saying given their weaknesses and the strengths of other styles it is entirely reasonable for Death Bolt to mortally wound. It does more damage then other attacks, but not by orders of magnitude, and not in excess of its cost and flaws.
Death bolt has existed in Last Hope a long time, and it has no history of dramatically changing anything, or breaking the game. It has a tactical use, but is grossly ineffiecent, so it rarely gets used. Take away that tactical function, and it's worthless.
The trouble with this version of Death Bolt that merely wounds an arm and a leg, is that it's awful. Death Bolt has a narrow application, but this... What I'll call "Derp Bolt", has no application. It's a terrible spell, only a fool would use it. If my settlement is under attack, where would throwing this get me? It pales in functionality to the far more available arrow. At the very worst, it means pulling off the line a mere moment to recieve first aid. Since your apparently fighting mages though, you're pretty much on even ground, and that's assuming you don't have a strap shield in which case the mage just spent 7 mana, exposed themselves to danger, for a chance to do basically nothing. A wounded leg? That might be a problem if you had to dodge a real attack.
To remain solution-oreinted, I maintain the meditation alterations really addresses the situation without nerfing mages into worthlessness, and Jeff had a really good idea regarding arrows setting off spells.
|
|