Enchantments: weapons vs. wands

A couple of months back, I created a thread outlining what I thought was a good direction for weapon and armor enchantment.

It was based on two premises:

1. That it would be more fun if certain types of enchantments were limited to certain types of items, and
2. That it would be more fun if enchantments could either be temporary or permanent.

The idea I ended up with was that someone would apply a salve from a particular school of magic --- say a Fire Salve for a Fire Magic enchantment, or a Spirit Salve for a Life Magic enchantment. The type of enchantment that would appear on the piece of weapon or armor would depend on what the item represented symbolically. A Fire Salve applied to a sword would create a Fire Sword, which would be a sword enveloped in a flame, while a Fire Salve applied to a shield would create a Shield of Flames, which would give a defense against fire magic. These salves would wear out over time, and to make their effects permanent, one would have to do an additional ritual to bind them to the item.

To read the whole concept here's a link to that thread,

— Magic salves & enchantments

* * *

The subject came up again though on a thread discussion where we were talking about the costs imposed by reagents, and how storing spells in staves and wands could cut the reagent use down. I would add a third premise that would justify the use of salves for enchantments:

3. That it would prevent fighters from undoing the advantage mages have with their spell-casting ability.

If a fighter were to pick up the Alchemy skill, he would be able to put any spell he wanted into a sword, whether it be Fireball or Root. If he were to do so, he would be able to increase his advantage over a pure mage over the advantages he already had. He would have his plate armor, for defense, his auto-attack, plus he would now have spell-casting. Being a pure mage becomes more of a liability.

In order to make that more difficult, you would need a way to involve a spell-caster in the process of enchantment. So for instance, if an alchemist could put the Fireball spell into the sword without outside help, no mage would need to be involved, and the fighter could accomplish this all by himself — but if the alchemist needed the help of a mage to cast the spell into the sword, then it would make fighters dependent on mages to store spells. The mage could either cast the spell in the process of enchantment, or deposit the spell into a scroll, which he then would turn over to the alchemist.

Still, though it would make it more difficult, it would still allow a fighter this formidable advantage if he were to get a willing mage to be an accomplice. Which makes the salve-enchantment approach an interesting option even for things like staves, wands, and mage swords :


STAVES AND WANDS AS RESERVOIRS OF MAGIC

Consider that if instead of charging a staff with a particular spell, you charged a staff for a particular school of magic. For example, maybe a mage would apply a Fire Salve to a staff, in order to make it a "Fire Staff." A Fire Staff might cut down on reagent use for Fire Magic until the salve wore off and the staff was left uncharged. The staff might make, for instance, low-tier Fire spells free from reagent requirements, where they wouldn't be otherwise.


This would have several effects —

* It would force fighters who want to use a bit of magic on the side to use reagents, while giving a break to mages by cutting their reagent costs. This would add to balance the game. Fighters wouldn't be able to use no-cost magic to Heal-spam, while a mage specialized in Fire Magic would be more competitive against a fighter.

* It would make staves, wands, and mage swords lack a practical use for non-mages. Of course, non-mages could still use scrolls to cast spells.

* It would encourage specialization of magic to the school the mage wants to charge his staff with, though it wouldn't prohibit him from bringing in spells from other schools — it would just make him pay for it with reagent cost.


On the other hand, if the nerfing of staves, wands, and mage swords for fighters is seen as making the game less fun, there could be a cross-approach: you could store specific spells in these items for anyone to use — fighters and mages alike — but the mage would get the added ability of cutting his reagent costs by wielding it.

Also possibly, a mage might be able to cut his reagent costs with any weapon or armor that was enchanted with the appropriate salve. A mage who wielded a Fire Sword or Shield of Flames would also have his Fire Magic reagent cost cut down. This would be explained by the fact that the mage is drawing his magic from the enchanted item. That could remove some of the balancing elements if this is done poorly. So for instance, a fighter still would be able to Heal-spam if he had a Spirit Shield or Spirit Sword (Life Magic), but this would have to be a trade-off versus getting a different type of shield or sword, that would be more powerful for normal battle, and it would need proper costs, being maintained with the Spirit Salve, which requires reagents to make, and wears off with time as the charges are expended.

 

Excellent idea Redfish. I love the staff on my wizard, and hope that your ideas are considered. The benefit to a pure mage's chosen school of magic provided by a staff would make sense. It would also enable mages to become 1 with their staff or wand. This form of play for some of us is very important.

I think that giving options on how to use our mages chosen weapon is important. They could still leave the option to imbue wands and staves with spells with charges, but perhaps to use those charged weapons you would have to charge it yourself because to use it you need to know the spell. That would take away having fighters using a staff or wand when they are already proficient with a sword.

 

Howdy guys,

Well, I read this post and started to read the others....and so far what I've read (and it hasn't been the whole thing) I have a problem. This is my problem and no one elses unless they were to chime in. I like the idea of enchantments, but, unless I'm misunderstanding, it sounds to me you want to turn everyone into a hybrid to include a fighter class + mage type hybrid.

I like the idea that a mage/alchemist can add and use enchantments that might be permanant on their staff or wand, I mean they are trained in the creation and use of those skills. But for a fighter to be able to use a fireball or root spell when he is completely untrained as a mage doesn't make alot of sense to me. It sounds like you want to make fighters into magic users without them having to give up anything to become mages??? (I bounce back and forth between and Axer and an Archer, I haven't tried a mage in 3 releases now). Guild Master sez, Don't worry you fighters, we can give you all the magic you want by enchanting everything and you don't have to worry about having any skill points in any of the magery skills to be able to spam heal on yourself and others, you can shoot fireballs at your leisure, root your enemies in place and don't worry about focus, we have an enchantment for that as well.

I have no problem with enchantments or salves being used, just how much mage power it appears you want to give to non mages. A fire enchantment on a shield when used at the proper time in the proper situation to provide more resistance to a fire spell being tossed at them...cool beans (but as a non mage each time that enchantment takes a hit it weakens). A fireball spell that shoots from a sword making it a ranged weapon from a fighter who is bogged down by heavy armor and has no or limited knowledge of the fire school of magic or the use of ranged weapons.....no bueno.

Please understand, I like the idea of enchantments and enhancements, I'm an archer, so I want any help I can get, lol. The way it's being verbalized at this point, and the picture it's bringing to mind is not pretty.....IMHO.

Haz

 

Haz,

No, that's exactly what the suggestion avoids, actually. It would make staves and wands almost useless to pure fighters because they wouldn't be used for spell storage. Instead, they would enhance a mage's power, by reducing his need for reagents.

Although personally I have no problem with a fighter being able to use something like a scroll to cast a spell. Or either with being able to cast spells from magic items like staves and wands, if he's giving up a weapon like a sword to use a staff or wand. Because he's giving up his fighting weapon --- but something I argue in the OP is storing spells in a sword might give too much power to a fighter, it would add to the advantage he already has over a pure mage.

Except that it would still be good to have limited types of enchantments, like you say for fire resistance to a shield, or igniting a sword in flames. Or enchanting a sword for use against a ghost, so you can kill its ethereal body.

So we don't disagree.

 

For reference, this is what the draft outline for skills says,

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/magic-combat-and-crafting-skills.3937/

My original post on enchantments back in August was a response to this, because I didn't think storing random spells in weapons or armor was a good idea, and I argued that enchantments needed to be more limited. The link to that is in the OP.

I didn't think much about staves and wands though, so that's what I'm trying to cover in this post.

 

Cool Redfish,

I reread the post with the understanding you provided above and I see where I misunderstood what you were saying. So we don't disagree.

Let me add my thoughts based on my new understanding of what you are saying, would like your input as it appears this is something you are well versed in.

I think that for fighters, actually for any non mage/alchemist char, enchantments might be limited to defensive and/or innate skills. I just don't see a non mage trained char shooting fireballs at someone and making it part of their arsenal. But for the defensive skills I can see a warrior char crouched down holding his fire enchanted shield in front of him, flames roaring past the shield as a dragon belches forth flames that would melt a normal shield to molten steel. I can see an archer's dex enchanted leather armor providing some minor protection from the dragon's breath, as long as we move our asses out of the flame rather quickly, otherwise we become burnt toast.

The ability for a non mage trained warrior to pickup, what to that warrior would be a stick, and have it cast a magic spell for him, doesn't seem right. He's not giving up his weapon, he's trading one weapon for another.

Haz

 

I see you posted while I was typing, I see we again, agree, lol.

 

Haz,

Yes, I see a warrior holding a fire resistant shield against a dragon's flames.

But also, like I said -- I think minor, limited enchantments should be able to fit on weapons also. So for example, a Fire Sword would simply be the equivalent of a sword with a Ignite Weapon spell, but it would wear off unless the enchantment was permanent. This would be important for role-playing in many instances, for example in going against supernatural creatures --- IMO, you should need an enchanted sword to kill a ghost. So you would make a Spirit Sword by covering your sword in a Life Magic salve, and this would temporarily allow you to fight and kill ghosts.

In the OP, I link to a post I made back in August, you should read that too, its where I talk about some of that.

 

lol, ok, I have to drop out of this for a bit to finish reading the other posts. Between getting ready for tonight, our house is the family gathering place on Christmas Eve, and my wife in my ear, I'll take my leave until I finish reading and am able to put together two thoughts that aren't interupted by Holiday thoughts, LOL.

Merry Christmas to ya Redfish, and Merry Christmas to everyone else as well.

Haz

 

Well I really need to see what their thoughts on weapon/armor enhancements work. I could see a blacksmith needing a regent (a salve for instance). But I don't see actual spells being stored in swords, at least I wouldn't like it.

As to staff's and wands.
I can see wands storing spells, I mean that's their traditional usage.
Staffs, I would like to see a variety there. And I would like to see only certain staves be able to actually store spells and others have effects you can recharge with regents and the appropriate school.

For instance; a staff of thunder and lightning would require a mage proficient in air to recharge.

 

so....for soemone who chooses to be an arcane archer - in other words a mage with a bow - it will unbalance them even more than it currently is.

right now it costs many reagents for ring of fire as an example, which is a GREAT ability to use when the mobs get in the archers face. - you are saying the weapon, and not the ammo, would be enchanted, using reagents to enchant - so that isn't free after all.

and with the rarity of reagents in the wild as claimed by previous UO games, hopefully brought into play here too, it would make it even worse - to the point where even some mages wouldn't be able to cast their spells for lack of reagents available to them.

any answers to these, redfish? i do like how you have attempted proper balance across the board here, hence these questions.

 

Ok, @OP.
I see a problem with the base reasoning here. You speak of equalizing the advantages between plate wearers and non plate wearers, between warriors and mages. SotA doesn't have any mages or warriors. We are ALL avatars.

As for mitigating the advantages of plate, WHY? Doesn't it already mitigate itself? Should I get nerfed because you built a sucky character? Armor IS an advantage! That's why it gets used so much.

There are many here who have talked about wanting to build a pure mage, and I applaud their ambition. But that doesn't mean I think they should get subsidized! If it turns out that wandering the lawless wilderness with nothing to protect you but your wits, spells, a cloth robe and a PvP flag is incredibly dangerous... if doing so frequently results in your death... if you find that when you see an enemy on the horizon wearing plate that you start unequipping items and packing them in your anti looting suite of nested bags, maybe you should consider that being a pure mage isn't a win button!

In games that HAVE dedicated spellcasters, they are traditionally VERY squishy, and this balances their place in the TEAM. That doesn't mean they have to have 1 v 1 balance with their fellow adventurers. In my experience, a battle royale of a given D&D party will come down to the fighter, the cleric and the rogue. At that point relative skill handles things. The wizard is out of the action in round 2, if not one.

If you want to build a pure mage, great, have at. If you have a team to work with, with a tank to screen fatties off you, fine, blast away with your magicks. But if you want traipsing around barefoot with a bag of reagents to be able to go toe to toe with a templar, that's crazy talk. Especially since that plate wearer? I bet he's packing some magick, like the first tier self heal spell, and looking to get more. He doesnt' seem to have any qualms about not being "pure". It's PvP, not kindergarten. The strongest rule.

 

Malak,

Nah actually I'm not talking about equalizing the advantages of everyone. In fact, if we were to go into a discussion of this, I'd say a fireball should be able to roast someone alive, and high level magic should be extremely powerful. That templar should be toast if he runs into a powerful sorcerer who has command over all the elements. But yes, a low novice mage should either be able to have good stealth skills, or get a weapon to defend himself, or have some protection magic.

But none of that's really the point of the OP. Part of the point of the OP is simply that fighters shouldn't be able to do magic as well as mages can, in addition to all of the other advantages they already have. Unless, they invest skills in magic, of course -- no issues with hybrid builds. Though even for hybrid builds, I think carrying a melee weapon instead of a wand or staff should involve a trade-off of its own.

 

Again, this game has neither fighers, nor mages. We are all hybrids. The only thing we limit by making armor and magick incompatible is the variety of builds we are able to make.

As for making the mage able to roast the templar, how powerful magick is vs armament vs stealth is completely up to the game devs. There is no rule anywhere saying how great video game fireballs must be. I advocate adapting to what is, rather than wishing for what isn't.

 

Right, but if someone who has never invested any points into magic skills takes up alchemy on the side and stores a lot of spells in his gear, and uses the spells in his gear, there will be very little reason to invest in magic skills.

This thread isn't about making armor and magic incompatible, that's a separate issue entirely; although I disagree with you there.

 

There seems to be a general lack of understanding on how things work.

A warrior in heavy plate has the advantage of all that metal wrapped around him. But it comes with it's own disadvantages.

To say a mage is weak because they can't wear heavy armor shows a lack of understanding of gaming. Magic is flexible and powerful, in fact a lot of balancing needs to be done because magic can become very OP very easily.

In a single player as well as multiplayer game where soloing is acceptable you have to balance everything. If someone wants to be a pure warrior they should be, if someone wants to be a pure mage they should be. That means making magic as effective a tool as a set of heavy armor and weapon. And they're well on their way. Different schools of spells have different spells, earth has toughness and damage resistance, fire has good offensive and some defensive capabilities. A robe may not be as inherently tough as heavy armor but let me enhance it and enchant it.

You wield a sword, I wield lightning. You have any idea what happens to you encased in metal when I induce a charge of lightning?
I hit you with a fireball, you have any idea how hot that armor can get?
I blink, how fast can you turn to find me? I have enhanced speed and a lot less encumbrance how ya going to catch me?
I summon an earth elemental who beats on you as I stand out of harms way pelting you with more spells.

A mages power is flexibility and adaptability.

If I use a sword, it's a rare sword called a spellsinger. My wand contains emergency spells for times when I run out of focus. I carry more then one wand.
I wear robes of the finest material, which have been enhanced for protection, I wear bracers that have been enhanced as well as a fine cloak that has been enhanced as well. Then each has been enchanted to resist diferent types of attacks.

 

Well, if you are going to field a FULLY developed archmagus, then you have to be willing to take on an EQUALLY developed platehead. I carry an insulation backed tower shield, with copper inlay trailing the ground. My armor is leather lined on the interior and has copper chain linkages, so you know what happens when you hit me with a lighting bolt? NOTHING. You scorch the ground at my feet a little. You'll need more than one fireball for cooking through my defenses. You want to blink around? Not a problem. I've got a bandolier of throwing knives, all laced with foxglove and psilocybin, one good hit and you'll be watching the pretty colors as you bleed out, we'll see how your magick works when you're too high to buy weed.

MY body hasn't been softened by years of reading books by candlelight, so I can cover that two-hundred yards between us in under twenty seconds, and I'll probably arrive with minimal harm. Yeah, I dabble in alchemy, and no, it's not as powerful as your finger wiggling, but you know what you need to do finger wiggling? Fingers. And now that I'm within four feet you don't even have HANDS.

Our silly little imaginary pokemon battles, however, are pointless. This is a discussion of what SHOULD BE, what WORKS, and what we think the dev's should CHANGE.

Me, I think that magick was too strong in Ultima Online, as evidenced by the fact that EVERYONE used it extensively. Was there a competing methodology? I haven't heard ONE person complaining about how they got killed all the time by archers, or by melee builds. It's always "those damn OP mages". If that is to be the case again, then mages will once again rule Britannia, and why should I have to give up being in the winning group?

If magick is just a tool that any build can use, it's much more balanced. If it isn't but the other methods of getting the job done are just as good, it's player choice. But if magick is BETTER, and EXCLUSIVE, then the entire game balance begins to tip over. Anyone not playing a mage is second rate, plate armor will be forged for decorative purposes only, since nobody in their right mind would not play a mage, and SotA is poorer for it.

 

If they exclusively increases Mages so they can attack an armored person the balance is gone, if they wish to take away the balance then, there should be just certain types of characters. Cleric, Mages, Warriors, Rogues, Druids, Rangers. and only those type can use their type of magic, and skill/or weapon. Look at Old D&D rules you could not use certain things based on your class. If you cross trained, your magic and skill were much more lower and cost more to do.

This is where the problem of, any class can use any skill. One class will be OP'd example Polearms. fire magic, a very devastating mix, same with Pole Arms, ice magic! magic being stacked is also another problem! if you stack 5 fireballs i will probably be messed up pretty bad and since im in armor healing will probably fizzle or not be as effective! (those are problems in this game with current set up)

If im in armor and your in cloth, you are faster, can cast off more magic on me before i can even get to you to do the first amount of damage! You can run all day long and I being in armor will not be able to catch up to you! OP once again!

Keep in mind if i do have magic and im in armor i have higher fizzle and more slugs! So even if i have a spell to hit you from a distance, its likely it will fizzle! So all i can do is stand there and get killed! Archers are the same when fighting against armored people, its basically a waste of time to even battle those two types Mage and Archer, if your in heavy armor, and Melee based. Sure i can put points in fire defense, but being a fighter i should not have too, those points would be better built on my skills as a Heavy fighter.

 

why does it have to be black or white? this or that? your way or the highway? i'll tell you, perspective.

i won't play a single archetype, even if they allow for it in the game. that just isn't me - but i do want that ability in the game.
i do want the ability to short circuit someone in plate, with a bolt of lightening, and i do want the ability to mitigate that with a portable aether device on my back, if i'm the plate-wearer.
i do want the ability to turn a plate armor into a portable easy bake oven, and i do want the ability to mitigate that with insulation.
i do want the ability to drown someone in plate armor so they sink in an invisible tub of water surrounding their armor, and i do want the ability to mitigate it by wearing a flipping snorkel on my head.

i do NOT want the simultaneous abilities on either side.
i don't want to wear the aether device that is insulated and a snorkel at the same time. but what i CAN do, i want to be able to do it VERY well, at high-level skills.
i dont want to waggle my pinky toe, right index finger, and nose then cast lightening fire and water to do all those things. - i want to have to FOCUS on one school, to be able to do that high-level action.

i don't want to be a level 6 with any of these abilities. i want it to take years to develop that level of understanding in a school, not hours or days, or even weeks or months.

but above all, i want to take my character, and decide halfway through, that this school isn't for me - and start on another school. over time, my skills (and skill points) return back from the unused school i abandoned. but never completely forgotten, meaning some of the low-level skills/spells are now permanent and cost much less to perform..let those be more utility spells/skill (like light, on the sun line) than action spells, so someone who does this isn't more OP than someone who simply focused on one school the whole time.

 

No. Even at first level the only difference in difficulty between a mage and a warrior should be the person playing them and the learning curve. A mage should not have to group just to survive. Yes it's a little more difficult but it should still be doable. And from what I've seen so far that's what their working towards.
As a mage you just need to balance your offensive and defensive abilities. I've already scoped out a few effective combinations and once they balance magic out I'll give it a whirl. I'll probably wait for the next major wipe after the re-balance point.

ThurisazSheol - what you're talking about in total would lead to a character who could never move. Your encumbrance would be through the roof.