Casting spells without reagents = BAD

Casting spells without reagents is bad...

for the economy
for crafting
for immersion
for game balance
for coolness
for fun
for eVar

The devs have recently explained that "current thinking" is to allow spell casting without reagents (but the spells would not be as powerful as if they had reagents). I think this is a very bad choice that dumbs down the game for the sake of convenience and very casual play.'

Please discuss...

 

Actually for fun I think it would be fun to be a mage and have some weak rediculous spells to cast without reagents. As long as the spells aren't offensively powerful it shouldn't be much of a problem.

If a mage runs out of reagents they should be in serious trouble. ...

I'm picturing fire arrow. If fire arrow normally has a long range because you have increased your range with the fire skills, then let it be a short range spell if you have no pearl, but you still have the other reagents the spell should do full damage. If the sulferous ash is mising and you still have the pearl, then let the spell have range, but no fire DoTs, and do half damage. (it is just arrow, lol)

Make it something weak, but something that still looks like magic.

If a person has NO reagents, then let the spell make the rune and fizzel completely.

That seems reasonable. As long as there is still some component left it should do something. If there are no magical reagents the let there be a light show and nothing more.

**Who knows that last effort light show might be enough to make the opponent run the other way, so you can make your escape.

 

for the economy .... Agreed
for crafting ..... Agreed
for immersion.........Somewhat agree
for game balance ....Somewhat agree
for coolness .........Agreed
for fun ........ Somewhat agree
for eVar ......... Somewhat agree ,,, Nostalgic


If they want to allow it without reagents I hope only a one in 10 chances of success ... good enough to keep you fed and from being stranded.

 

From a balance perspective, I've always felt like if a mage ran out of reagents then they should either know how to fight with something else or RUN!

I TOTALLY fail to understand why in the world mages would need to cast spells without reagents. Does that mean that a fighter should get to attack people with a broken sword? Should crafters with no tools get to make stuff? Come on!

 

Hmm... Depends on implementation in my opinion.

Let's take the ubiquitous "fireball" spell, and let's say for example: It does 10 damage with no reagents, but 100 damage with reagents.

So, in combat a spell-caster would need to fire off 10 fire-balls with no reagents to equal the power of one fire-ball with reagents, in addition to expending 10 times as much focus to do so.

It comes down to : Does the player know that they will survive long enough in battle to fire off 10 lower-powered spells ? If they do, then that sounds like a perfectly sound strategy for them.

If not, then perhaps going with the higher powered spell would be better for their play-style.

----

Again, depends on implementation. If the difference in power between reagent and non-reagent usage is inconsequential, then it would be troublesome.

 

reagents are a core part of what was awesome about ultima in the first place

They were a reason to go exploring, because mandrake and nightshade in particular were expensive or difficult to find

They made casting spells require some pre-thought and strategy

They were just really cool. Don't dumb it down.

Things like ring of reagents and gauntlet of reagents completely miss what the reason for having reagents was in the first place

I think they should be part of crafting... the alchemy table ? We should be able to garden reagents ?

Gardening, Cooking, Fishing, Gambling... give people downtime stuff to do when they're bored of the quests and pvp and you will create a living world...

 

Yes, I get your point. I'm sure that's what the devs are thinking too.

Now let's think about 10 people walking around with no reagents, no armor and nothing to lose. This should conclude our discussion, but I'm guessing it just evolves it.

 

I want to fish without a fishing pole! LOL

 

Stretch Goal lol

 

One thing a fighter could do that has a busted weapon is still figure out how to defend himself or herself. Even if you studied how to fight with swords, there is still some footwork, and some timing based hand/eye coordination that the person has built up over the years. The warrior should still be able to keep from being hit, just as he did while wielding his intact weapon. If his weapon is wobbly and busted it might not be good for much attacking, but they should still be able to manouver. Same with the person with messed up armor. They should still retain some of the innate skills of the armor eventhough a plate might be dangling a bit leaving an open target.


That being said, a mage may use reagents to cast spells, but what about the equivilant to hand/eye coordination? Shouldn't the mage be able to sense or be in tune with the magical ether more than an untrained person? Part of the manipulation of magic has somatic components. Reagents alone doesn't make a caster better in sota, what about the innate skills of the skill tree? Those aren't reagent based? So there must be some kind of training, and magical attunment.

So I totally agree with you guys about not being able to cast any offensive spell without reagents, but if you have some reagents you should be able to pull off part of the spell, and do something with it. Also there should be spells that do not require reagents such as flickers of light for sun magic, or some kind of mist for water, or an obscurement with lunar magic. Something like that.

 

You're asking some very reasonable questions. I have no problem saying some spells don't require material components. Some spells might only require a verbal or semantic component. That's easier to stomach because now when someone roots you to the ground you can't cast any semantic components. Now if someone silences you, you can't cast anything requiring a verbal component. I'd love to see a system like that.

Of course, most people would just use verbal or semantic only spells...so you'd want to balance those out a little more by adding additional fizzle and backfire chance but also putting longer cool downs, less power, and MUCH easier ways to counter them (with heavy weight being put on counters).

 

Maybe this is another place where wands and staffs could come in.

 

It would be best for all combat to require reagents .

 

Is it possible that a wand could possibly stand in for one of those components like a reagent, somatic, or verbal components? Perhaps with some kind of limit equal to the charges such a device would normally carry, over a certian period of time or something.

So I'm not saying let a wand always stand in for a missing reagent or other component all the time, but maybe it can for a short period of time soon after the mage is lacking one of the components. Maybe after it reaches the charge limit it can no longer provide that ability until it has time to recharge.

This might be enough for a mage in serious trouble to escape, or to finish off a close match, but nothing more than squeaking out the last bit of power she has access to.

**The wand could then create a special spark as an indicator or something like that so the mage knows he or she is not able to access some component.

 

Maybe staffs could have a different type of secondary property. Maybe a staff works the opposite way. If the person has components but does not have enough mana, maybe it could provide a focus benefit in a similar way.

 

Well a fighter can always carry another sword or other weapon. If you allow only the fighter to carry only one weapon them I completely gree. When the fighter's weapon breaks, he can have the same choices as the Mage, to run. As for crafters, the logic just doesn't work.

 

Considering the rarity of reagents, I think this option actually makes sense If you're a dedicated mage, you can afford to spend the time needed to gather or grow reagents. For those of us playing other types of characters (i.e., fighters, thieves, bards, etc.), spending countless hours obtaining reagents may not be a viable option. If you are unable to obtain magic through other means (i.e., you are in some uncharted area and don't have access to vendors who sell scrolls, potions, or runes) , being able to cast magic spells at reduced strength without reagents (i.e., 25 -33%) may mean the difference between life and death...

 

Yes, wands and staves are already in the game serving that function.

 

Doesn't the fighter have to bring enough weapons just as the mage has to bring enough reagents? I don't see what the difference is here.

 

It wouldn't mean anything if you didn't cast magic. If you don't have access to vendors or spell components then it doesn't make sense to be a mage, does it?

Why is being a mage and casting magic some kind of right that we have to grant everyone in the game from day one? Can't it be special, can't it require some work?