Casting without reagents?

There was probably only one thing that would have taken Ultima Online from the greatest game in the past 30 years, to the greatest game ever, and that would have been to dump the silly single player aspect of reagent based casting.

Onward with an RPG from this decade with no reagents, and you all shouldn't be telling me that I need them because I don't want to play my game that way.

 

Having spells that simply don't require reagents and those that do would make more sense

 

I actually thought they came up with a good compromise Low level spells (Level 2 and below - i.e., light, heal touch and ray, purify, etc.) do not require reagents, while more powerful spells (level 3 and above - fireball, lightning, death ray, etc. ) do in order to cast at full strength. Using reagents is the suggested way of casting. By not requiring reagents for low level spells, most players (especially those who are not dedicated mages ), actually stand a chance of surviving long enough in the wild in order to reach the next village, town, or city (where presumably they would be able to stock up on healing potions and/or scrolls, torches, etc.) You are severely penalized for not using reagents with those high level spells (i.e., much less damage and greatly increased focus cost), which means that you would be more likely to die in combat That certainly sounds like a good incentive to use reagents...

 

SotA is NOT UO2! SotA is the spiritual successor of all Ultimas. And the need of reagents for casting spells is an old Ultima tradition

 

Mages have to deal with reagents. Warriors have to deal with slugs.

 

I agree with both statements. I have been an advocate in these forums for equality between the three combat types: fighter, archers, and mages. I like the idea of reagent use, but I also advocate that the other systems need to have a similar mechanic. It's not like reagents make your spells that much stronger, or even stronger when compared to similar tier attacks in the combat tiers. Lightning for example, rarely hits over 20 points. I went fighting with a mace and in plate armor and never once feared for my life. With elves I could kill without fear of dieing, even taking on two fighters at a time. If I tried that as a mage, dirt nap. And I went into the sewers and never feared that I'd die form one skeletion and in same cases I could take on two at time. With a mage I had problems taking on one. So reagents don't add anything other than cost to playing a mage. UO lore is fine and all, and I as I said that I can live with reagents. But for me lore isn't enough of a reason to require their exclusive use. I agree with docdoom and applaud the devs in taking their current approach.

 

In my opinion slugs are not equivalent to reagents. That is like comparing apples and oragnes. Sorry.

The referenc to slugs can only compare to armor slugs, and you can't compare the use of armor to reagents. Armor slugs are the result of using heavier armor that gives you a protection advantage. The protection advantage is why there are slugs, not the fact that someone needs reagents to cast a spell.

 

That was more for the "mages have all the disadvantages crowd" than a direct 1:1 comparison.

 

Just over the reagents issue?? There's a lot in R9. I'm having a lot of fun! (note to self, log bug). You should give it a chance

 

wth there is no equality between classes... everyone knows a mage is way more powerful ?!

Are you guys living in the same time continuum ?

It's ridiculous to be able to summon the elements just on a whim... when mages learn spells like that they can only cast it once a day or twice at most and then feel totally depleted.

 

Yep. Mages will always be more powerful. They just need to get high-level.

Plus, I don't get this,

since most fantasy stories since forever show mages fighting with daggers or their staves or some other melee weapon when they can't use their magic. Gandalf blocked with his staff in LOTR. And archers won't always find their bows valuable -- when they're in close-quarters -- they'll want to drop their bows and pick up a sword when the enemy goes at them hand-to-hand. And warriors might find their weapons ineffective against magical creatures and need a potion or scroll.

Not that I'm necessarily arguing against the way they chose to do magic. I'm just saying I don't find many of the arguments for it that convincing. The argument that holds the most water is it just being another thing to go easy on players. Player: "I don't want to have to use weapons if I run out of reagents!" Devs: "Ok, you don't have to."

One problem I see with going easy on players is it could make every fight style equivalent, just different. If magic is the same as hand-to-hand melee, which is the same as archery (supposing bows are good at close range and not just from far away), then these are all different flavors of the same thing, and not different things.

 

Not most. Most fantasy settings your limited to a staff or a dagger. Gandolf was unique as he was a loremaster by LOTR standards, not the same thing as he was more a hybrid of druid/mage.
Daggers tend to be ceremonial as any mage will not face a warrior with just a dagger, unless that's a very special dagger. Staves are more vessels of power even though you can smack someone with it. Most mages rely on their power, I know in many games I played a mage and used nothing but spells. I only carried a dagger or staff for some bonus or spell I could carry in it.

But as I said before, a mage should be just as viable as a melee. And mages are most definitely not as near as effective as any melee. They either need to get rid of auto-attack all together or find an auto-attack for a mage, maybe their lowest skill.

 

Yep, that's what I said.

But just looking at this from a pure role-playing perspective, if you were a mage, wouldn't you carry a dagger on your person just in case your magic wasn't working? We're even going to have an "ignite weapon" spell in the Fire Magic school.

The way I look at this is that a player in every "class" in the game is going to have a main repertoire and a backup. An archer will want to resort to a backup when he gets into close combat. A warrior will want to rely on magic when fighting supernatural, magic, or ethereal creatures. If there were a rogue class in the game, such players would want to rely on stealth, but wouldn't be able to some of the time, and would need hand-to-hand-skills. There's nothing wrong with mages having a backup, too.

I've been playing mostly PvE in the test, and fighting the elf archers, thinking about how silly it is that they're attacking me with their bows at point-blank while I'm hitting them with my sword. And of course, the elf mages are unlimited fire creating machines.

 

When a warriors weapon is damaged in combat they would have to carry a spare weapon if they also use some magic they too need reagents, gathering & selling reagents was a major part of the UO economy.
Archers need arrows or will they be allowed to fire fresh air at a reduced damage rate.

 

Wha wha what?

 

As a mage at most I would carry a staff. It would contain SPELLS as my BACK-UP!

 

And if someone were using counter-magic / dispel magic and all your magic fizzled? You'd have to use your staff physically :>

Anyway what I'm imagining is a mage if armless would just switch skill decks if he's low on reagents to his short/blade dagger deck -- just like an archer would drop his ranged deck for a close combat deck. If he doesn't want to do that, he could use his wizard's staff to defend himself.

 

Nope. If you want to play that way that's your choice. But someone who wants to play a pure mage should be able to. And so far there is no counter-magic. There is resistance but no counter.

Mages should be able to play as a mage NOT A HYBRID.

 

Reagents should not be optional.

PvP - Many forum posters ranted about the naked mage in UO and how that ruined their PvP experience. Just think what would happen if reagents were optional, even with power reduction.

PvE - Monsters with spell casting ability should loot reagents from your corpse. Making reagents mandatory puts the caster at the same disadvantage of retrieving gear or exacting revenge on the monster as a melee character would if their weapons were looted.

Gatherer - If reagents are optional, they will become less valuable which will hurt the gatherer play style.


Optional reagents just makes the game seem ... simple.