Ice Bolt Spell

[PaulH]

An offensive priest spell using the Zo/Des Ew graphic.

Runes: Vi Ir

Short range (as is heavier than fire), effects different monsters in different ways. As this is technically firing 'life', I put forward the idea that this spell will inadvertantly heal certain monsters. But will have an effect greater damage than a fireball on certain others eg fiery monsters. Which monsters they will be is open to discussion.

[beowuuf]

I think an icebolt is an icebolt - why add healing into it?
It can do more physical damage than magical, so is different from fireball (fire/slight magic) and lightning bolt (magic/more physical) and as you say might do more damage to fire-based like dragons or hellhounds.

It would be good to see it have the opposite effect of fireball on fire elenttals, for instance - they absorb fireballs and gain health points, maybe they absorb icebolts and lose points, to a certain floor value

[Christopher]

What!? Why would Ice Bolt be a priest spell? Priests are the defenders, always have been, always will be. This should not be changed at all, for any reason. Wizards are for magical attacking. I am strongly against any priest spell causing damage to monsters directly. Vi is a water symbol, water has to do with life, therefore Vi has to do with life. It is still water and can certainly be used for attack as well, based on its water properties.
I agree with Beowuuf, it shouldn't be able to have any healing affects, even towards Water Elementals. I thought this up as a wizard spell and I want it to stay that way! Sorry if I appear to be coming on a little strong.

[PaulH]

That is what a discussion is about. Ideas are open to interpretation. As for 'healing' I meant it in the context that beowuuf mentioned exactly in his second paragraph, having an 'adverse' effect. This can be construed as 'healing'.
As for it being a priest spell, I see no reason why not. Your reasons are given in the original context of the game. This is not now the original game. Other games have offensive priest spells, ie Bane's LifeSteal to name one.
And just because you originally thought up the spell does not give you reason to have the final say either! This after all is why we are discussing it!

[Christopher]

Hmm, well if you want to make a new game, fine. I don't need to have anything to do with it. I thought we were going to have a slightly changed Dungeon Master, but if you are going to make another one of those "clones", good luck to you.

[PaulH]

'Slightly changed' is open to interpretation. I am putting forward ideas to be discussed, that's all. I am not making, speaking or intending to make a clone just commenting on my opinons and views of this game and ideas to 'improve' (?) or vary the game.

[Gambit37]

This is a discussion board where people "discuss" things. Christopher, it is great that you have strong views on something, and you certainly shouldn't apologise for that; just remember that in an open forum you should expect to hear both sides of an argument and be able to comment accordingly: "Don't stick your head above the battlements if you don't want to be shot at."

Saying "I thought this up, therefore it's my idea and I have control of it" is a very selfish way of looking at things, which is pretty ironic considering you commented on other people being selfish in a different thread.

If you want to have control of changes to the game and don't like other people's suggestions, then go off and make them yourself. If you're willing to discuss these changes in this open forum, then you can't possibly expect to have that kind of "final say".

Can't we all just get along? :-)

[Christopher]

I did not imply, or mean to imply that I had the final say in this. Let me try my side of the spell idea... (please note that words like 'should' are not meant to imply 'must be this way', I don't know what other words to use in their place that would correctly represent what I'm trying to say)
There should be a balance between priests and wizards in that they cast only offensive or defensive spells. Giving wizards healing powers and giving priests direct attack powers in a magic sense would mix the skills of the two and therefore make them unbalanced. There could be a new skill brought about called something like sorcerer or mage which involves new spells that are based on combinations of offense and defense. But making a priest able to cast offensive spells, and\or a wizard able to cast defensive spells will unbalance their importance and make one more important than the other. This can not be balanced out by adding any amount of spells to either skill. If a new magic caster skill is brought about, then many of the spells that are having a lot of question about, or that have received a veto (whether or not a veto matters to anyone), will more likely be able to be used and have importance. The new skill idea is just an idea, and I don't even know if such a thing would be possible or accepted by anyone. This is the best compromise I can come up with (so far).
If new monsters are thought up and included into this new game process which are based on having a cold body (or something like that) then I see no reason why Ice Bolt can't heal those monsters. I just don't see how it would heal any of the monsters presently in the game.
Oh, and if this new skill idea is accepted, my first suggestion is to make attack potions like the poison potion, or kath bomb spells for this skill.

[Christopher]

Since the discussions are finished, could I have an update from someone? Is anybody working on new spells/monsters/weapons/ect. at the moment? Does anyone plan on starting sometime soon? It seems all secretive since nobody is discussing anything anymore.

[Sphenx]

I understood that D. Lacouture is working on that, right?

[beowuuf]

lol, that was my understanding too - real life? scared from the amount of heated debate a simple idea generated?