Limiting spells [The original spell book thread]

Messages are moved here (should anyone ever want to see them again) once they are no longer applicable to the current version (e.g. suggestions that have been implemented or bugs that have been fixed).

Moderator: George Gilbert

Forum rules
Please read the Forum rules and policies before posting.
User avatar
cowsmanaut
Moo Master
Posts: 4378
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:53 am
Location: canada

added points..

Post by cowsmanaut »

hmmm I have some added things to put into this heavily bubbling pot..

1. The spell book being something that is found is what I had intended. Now with gambits statement of wizards starting off by knowing the runes should not really be true unless they had training before entry. Now it could be possible that someone like wuuf or gothmog did have this training and therefore should start with a book in possesion containing a few runes they have learned prior to dungeon entry.

2. While I agree with the statement that should not forget a spell since they are viewed as being wise and all of that but for the sake of this game... perhaps magic has nature that causes one to forget unless it is learned each day. This is from D&D rules (.. a wizard must commit their spells to memory prior to a battle.. Spells on a scroll are forgotten after the spell is used and the spell then is erased from the scroll.. ) so with those in mind it's not such a harsh method we are using.. and it also allows some excuse for the loss of runes when you lose the book. So what I suggest is that perhaps runes could be retained a short term after the loss of the book.. sort of the fading of memories.

beyond those two things.. I think that the wizard learning curve already set in DM is a good model and shouldn't be messed with.. this is merely an addition to that model.

This method basically allows the Dungeon creator keep balance in new dungeons .. remember that the DM dungeon didn't allow introduction of caracters that already finished the game. Imagine how it would play if it did..

Also it forces the player to not use their own knowlege but that of the characters they are playing.. which is more what playing an RPG is about.. losing yourself in the ROLE of someone else..

cheers
User avatar
amaprotu
Adept
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2001 9:47 pm
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Re: added points..

Post by amaprotu »

This is a quite from a grame devele=oper that I think applies to this case:
"There comes a point when 'reality' must be overlooked and belief suspended for the benefit of the game."

The purpose of the game is to be fun. Nuthing in the game is *real* enough for considerations of what should *realistically* happen. Realistically there should be no wizards or priests with magic potions, no resurections, no chaos master and really no insane puzzle filled dungeon. But that wouldn't be a game. So instead of discussing what should happen *realistically" with the characters we should discuss what will make the better game. It is also a good point that there are enough fantasy novels and games out there to find instances where any method of magic could be correct (D&D, tolken, EQ, R. Jordan, Revenant just as 5 out of a million). This remindes of a funny thread on my EQ forums. It was a long discussion of the penalty for dieing in the game (you lose XP when you die, a lot of it as you level) and one character wrote a long post about how horribly unjust and drastic the penalty was and his last line said "The penatly for dieing needs to be brought in line with reality" the devolopers responce basically sumed it up "Now that WOULD be drastic."

Well I think that proves to be an inane, thought deprived and rather stupid waste of ones and zeros, with a lot of spelling and gramatical errors. And no redeeming value. So back on topic, maybe.

I like and apporve any system that will let me in some way control the magic used in a dungeon that I create. I would like this because it could make my dungeon differ from DM in more than a new maze with new wall paper and a new sound track.

The new system should not be so hard as to make the original DM impossible to play. For this reason I do not think any system that reveals the spells when the scrolls are found will be bad, because that is essentially how DM was meant to be played, you cast the spells you knew and searched for scrolls revealing how to cast new ones.

The advantage of the rune system is that it will allow adventurers more flexibility in what spells they cast because they need only find the runes.

The advantage of a spell limiting implementation is that it gives more control to the designers of a the dungeons as to which spells are cast.

Another advantage to the rune system is that, to my knowledge, it is already implemented.

Great work George, I don't think I say that often enough. This has been a weird post, I think the second part was better than the first, but it's late and I'm tired. Hope at least something up there makes sense.

- Amaprotu
- Amaprotu
User avatar
beowuuf
Archmastiff
Posts: 20687
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 2:00 pm
Location: Basingstoke, UK

Re: Spells and Portability

Post by beowuuf »

Just bringing this back up for people who missed it first time round : )
Was unable to (permenantly) kill off ian_scho (Haynuus), Ameena, oh_brother (Westian), money (Falkor), raixel (Petal) and Lord_Bones (Aurek) in the DM D&D game Time's Champions!

CONGRATULATIONS TO THOSE WHO MADE THE GAME WHAT IT WAS - GREAT!
DjArcas
Apprentice
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2001 2:48 pm

Re: Spells and Portability

Post by DjArcas »

Excellent. I only got RTC recently, with the spellbook in it, and I thought 'what a bloody good idea'
Now I see where it came from. It made the game *far* more challenging (when I first got DM, it was second hand, with no manual, so I had to guess the spell combos.. :) - no fireballs until the Tomb of the Firestaff level makes the game a LOT harder... I've NEVER used the Des Ven spell before :)
User avatar
Gambit37
Should eat more pies
Posts: 13714
Joined: Wed May 31, 2000 1:57 pm
Location: Location, Location
Contact:

Re: Spells and Portability

Post by Gambit37 »

Really? Des Ven is far more effective against a lot of creatures than fireballs, especially rock piles, wasps and gigglers. Out of interest, how many people just fireball everything? How many of you actually ever bothered to try different spells against different creatures to work out relative effectiveness?
User avatar
amaprotu
Adept
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2001 9:47 pm
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Re: Spells and Portability

Post by amaprotu »

I admit when I played on my atari st i fireballed everything, of course I was 11 years old, and never got past the choose your door choose your fate section.....

Since I came back I have been trying different spells =p <p>Amaprotu
Mahkahl Darkwolfe "Avvisione"
Flezz Fuu
</p>
- Amaprotu
User avatar
beowuuf
Archmastiff
Posts: 20687
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 2:00 pm
Location: Basingstoke, UK

Re: Spells and Portability

Post by beowuuf »

Back in my amiga days, yep, i measured everything in terms of how many fireballs it would take to toast them.
I've now gone to the opposite extreme, and hack and slash almost everything. SO it wasn't until it was brought up I realised that Trolins were very susceptible to dew ven (the giggler vanishing spell), and so on. For higher difficulties i've started using des ven and near the end lightning bolts - it's nice to have to mix it up now ; )
Was unable to (permenantly) kill off ian_scho (Haynuus), Ameena, oh_brother (Westian), money (Falkor), raixel (Petal) and Lord_Bones (Aurek) in the DM D&D game Time's Champions!

CONGRATULATIONS TO THOSE WHO MADE THE GAME WHAT IT WAS - GREAT!
Guest

Re: Spells and Portability

Post by Guest »

I was rather the opposite. Being around three years old when I was first introduced to the game, I was *not* very competent. I made up for this by being meticulous. Here are some of my conclusions on the subject of monster vulnerabilities (mostly applied via giving my father playing instructions):

Screamers and rockpiles, being slow-moving (especially the latter), are susceptible to OH VEN spells.

Mummies and skeletons, having few hit points (especially the former), can usually be destroyed with a whack or two from a melee weapon.

Blue men with clubs (the real name for which I have since learned and forgotten) can be killed with a disproportionately low-level DES VEN spell.

Purple worms and swamp slimes, being fairly hardy (especially the former), must usually be taken out with FUL IR.

Couatls are *very* susceptible to poison, either DES VEN or OH VEN; however, given their high speed, the former is usually better.

Wizard's eyes are most susceptible to physical damage, but since you really don't want to get too close to them it's better to use fireballs (FUL IR). The same with gigglers, only more so given that once you get close enough to hit them your weapons have gone AWOL.

Ghosts and materializers both have to be attacked with non-material beings weapons, obviously, but I find the DES EW spell works better on ghosts and the Vorpal Blade(s) have better results on materializers - even before you factor in the whole "un-materialized materializers cannot be damaged by DES EW spells".

Pain rats seem to be most affected by fireballs, whereas the things with beaks (which I also learned the proper name for briefly in '96) seem to have some kind of resistance to them. Vexirks are most easily slain with melee weapons, but fireballing them from a distance will usually cause less damage to your own party.

Scorpions - ick. I usually wound up facing these things hand to stinger, for some stupid reason, but I *wanted* to hit them with lightning bolts down a long hallway. And lightning bolts do work on them, no kidding.

Water elementals are real problems; nothing seems to work on them when they're not attacking. I personally prefer DES EW spells, but that's just because all four champions can ready them and then fling them at a moment's notice. Their later counterparts, the black flames, are much easier; not only can you hit them whenever you please, but they're fixed in place and possess only direct attack capability. They're really only a problem in cases where you have to stand right in front of one (and, usually, its counterpart) to kill it.

I generally thought melee combat was most effective against Animated Armour, but if you're overloaded and can't keep behind them you really have to hit them with lightning bolts.

Oitus seem susceptible to DES VEN, but then, oitus seem susceptible to most everything except OH VEN (poison cloud) spells.

I'm a firm believer in killing the stone golems via melee, since they're slow enough to keep to one side of with relative ease; then again, this means waiting a couple of minutes for them to trudge out into a semi-open space where you can employ that tactic. I think fireballs and lightning are equally (in)effective, though all my tests seemed to suggest that fireballs worked better.

The dragon should be killed via - surprise! - melee. That's mainly because you don't want to give him room to maneuver in; if you let him face you at any time and aren't prepared to dodge on a dime, you should expect to lose at least a couple of champions. If you must take the magical route, fireballs are the way to go. Poison doesn't seem to work on him, though it may just be because he has so many hitpoints the effect is negligible.

Note that on that last, I stand more or less alone. I never could convince my father, nor any other DM player, that my way was better. And maybe it's not. It just seems, paradoxically, safer.

I also never did quite figure out what demons are susceptible to. I have vague memories of DES VEN being surprisingly effective, but... I suspect they're illusory.

-As Always, Strictly Anonymous



[...Ah yes... Trolins and Rusters, respectively. I knew my memory would come back eventually.]
Guest

Re: Spells and Portability

Post by Guest »

Sorry. That was way more than any of you asked for, wasn't it? I hope you take it in stride, and remember: there's ALWAYS someone out there with less of a life than you.

- SA
User avatar
Zyx
DSA Master
Posts: 2592
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 1:53 pm
Location: in the mind
Contact:

about Dragonslaying

Post by Zyx »

I'd rather fight the dragons too, especially in open spaces. They're so low that you can always stand in their backs. (no backstabbing bonus, though)
User avatar
Gambit37
Should eat more pies
Posts: 13714
Joined: Wed May 31, 2000 1:57 pm
Location: Location, Location
Contact:

Re: about Dragonslaying

Post by Gambit37 »

Anon, you're right - there is always someone with less of a life, and I'll prove it. :wink:

I built a test dungeon using DMute which allowed me to check relative monster strengths against all available spells. It took me a long time to do this, but I ended up with a reasonably accurate damage table to find out exact relationships.

This damage table has been given to george and he has implemented it into RTC, so the damage model (for spells) should be pretty close to DM. I will also be including this information on my DM web site.

I can tell you now though that a couple of your observations are wrong:

* The Dragon IS susceptible to poison
* Knights take virtually no damage from lightning bolts or any other spell (we're talking 1 or 2 hitpoints at most for a MON level lightning bolt). You're right about the edged weapon attacks - Inquisitor and Diamond Edge are the most effective. The same is true for Stone Golems.
Guest

Stupid Mistakes

Post by Guest »

Eh - I'm not surprised I got some of them wrong. Dragons *are* susceptible to poison, though? That one surprises me a little, but I probably just wasn't thorough enough when it came to testing the Dragon. (My pre-dragonslaying saved game disappeared, naturally.)

That bit with the DMute is downright amazing. I'd sort of wondered how George was coming up with the "hidden" monster statistics, but I'd assumed he had some way of cleaving open the original code and observing them directly.

I'll have to tell you sometime about my project to time the invisible teleporters in CSB...
_pharaoh

Post by _pharaoh »

About spells, and the new (well, I suspect, not too new anymore- I just grabbed v0.24 of RTC a week or two back) rune/book system, I have a suggestion. Perhaps certain characters should have an innate affinity for one (but only one) influence. George already mentioned in another thread that he'd implemented, to some extent, the idea of hidden merits and flaws for different characters.

The way I envision it working is like so- you pick a character that has a rune (example: VI for Mophus the Healer), and that rune is always available to that character. Note it is *only* available to that character, and not the party as a whole, unless it happens to be in the spell book.

Of course, some of you might be pointing out that this breaks the whole "let the designer strip rune X from the dungeon" philosophy. First, I should reiterate it only works for the character in question. Even if the designer opts to make a dungeon without the FUL rune, having a single character able to use it won't throw the balance too far askew. Sure, they might be tossing off fireballs, but nobody else will, and with only one character doing it, you're dealing with a much smaller mana pool.

Another way to balance this would be to apply a global failure chance to spells using the rune, unless the party had actually acquired it on a scroll or other item. Imagine three parties, A, B, and C. Party A has no characters with any magical affinities. They simply cannot cast any spells without first obtaining the necessary runes. Party B has Mophus, who inherently has VI, but they do not yet possess any runes besides the power ones. Mophus can attempt to cast a VI potion, and, even though he is an archmaster priest (this is a few days into the dungeon, you see) and has a flask in hand, he still will suffer, say, a 25% failure rate. Perhaps the failure chance could vary, depending on the rune in question, or the 'bank' of runes to which it belonged, so the 'element' runes might incur a 25% failure chance, the 'form' runes a 50% chance, and the 'alignment' runes a whopping 75% chance.

A third balancing factor could be a mandatory trade-off, to wit, a rune the character could either not use at all, or would have severe penalties when using. For example, our friend Mophus may be attuned to the element of water, but the price is that he finds fire magic very difficult to use. This rune would be fixed, relative to the 'bonus' rune, so as to prevent an unscrupulous player from creating characters with more powerful or more often used runes as the affinity, and lesser-used runes as the tradeoff. I suggest it be on a system of opposing influences, like FUL-VI, or RA-SAR.

The only disadvantage I can see to this is that it might partially 'break' the design of some dungeons, but with proper limits, as shown above (the most important being "it's not as good as actually having it in the book"), it shouldn't have a significant adverse impact.

It has a few advantages, besides adding some flavor to the game. First and foremost, it can change party selection dynamics. That 'useless' character can now offer something of value, as the party (through that character, I mean- not the party proper) now has access to a rune before they acquire it. It will still not allow casting any spells before the party acquires the book, however, as every spell is at least two syllables, and no character can have more than one rune affinity- it will only allow casting them sooner, or casting them in a limited fashion in a dungeon deprived of said rune.

I also like Adam's idea of a "grace period" for runes, so that the party wouldn't instantly lose all spellcasting capability if they somehow lost the book. If you've ever been in a hectic running combat (or more accurately, a "running away" combat), you know how frustrating it is to lose critical items because the champion holding them is slain. At least with potions and such, it's possible to minimize this effect by distributing the goods among your champions, but this is impossible with the book, unless the dungeon designer opts to toss in multiple copies.

Whew. That was a bit more than I intended to say, and I hope I didn't leave any unfinished sentences as I was jumping back and forth. I hope you're reading this, George. :)

PS- ack! It wouldn't let me use my chosen name. Perhaps I should email Gambit, as I was on one of the old forums, and it seems my name came along with the conversion.
User avatar
PicturesInTheDark
Arch Master
Posts: 1154
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 4:47 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

Post by PicturesInTheDark »

Very interesting stuff. Of course, this would be a fundamental change to the game mechanics... Personally I prefer to see the "learning" of runes equal, no matter if you had them in the book or an affinity. But I kind of like the idea of "preferred runes" for a character or problems with opposite runes. If ever implemented this could even depending on what spells a charcter uses in the game - if he only ever throws fireballs, he could produce more "failures" with a certain other rune opposed to that spell, for example.

Regards, PitD
Post Reply