repartitioning spells mage vs priest

[fizzix]

I'm not a fan of adding classes to V. I think the current class break-up is fine, but they need better distinction. I think the best changes to V occur when things are adjusted from what they currently are, rather than when whole new concepts are added.

I like the idea of redefining spellbooks. I don't have any strong feelings about Eddie's delineations, but I noticed he didn't really touch the detection spells. If anything, I think these spells need the biggest overhaul.

Also, I'll bring up the suggestion from a while ago about randomized spellbooks, in the spirit of requesting radical changes. If you randomize spellbooks, you can also put probabilities of certain classes getting certain spells. Maybe the mage gets stinking cloud in only 35% of games and priests get it in 80%.

[Derakon]

Randomizing spellbooks strikes me as dangerous because it means that a lot of bread-and-butter spells are no longer guaranteed. Mages expect to be able to cast Magic Missile right off the bat; they'd be rather screwed otherwise. A Priest without Sense Invisible is going to be moderately unhappy.

[Atarlost]

Offensive magic is supposed to be the whole point of mages. If you want to fight with something mundane and just use magic for detection and evasion you may as well play a rogue or ranger.

[Pete Mack]

Offensive magic is supposed to be the whole point of mages. If you want to fight with something mundane and just use magic for detection and evasion you may as well play a rogue or ranger.

Actually, the whole point of mages is terrible survivability balanced by bad fighting skills, with the bonus of really nifty guaranteed escapes.

Or so I assume from my experience of playing mage.

[PowerDiver]

I like the idea of redefining spellbooks. I don't have any strong feelings about Eddie's delineations, but I noticed he didn't really touch the detection spells. If anything, I think these spells need the biggest overhaul.

To begin with, I think that "detect traps" should be removed in all its forms. Traps are pointless when everyone always detects them. But that's a different discussion. I consider illumination to be a detection spell, so at least I touched on that.

I don't believe in the common definitions of life or evil, so my views on those detections would be pointless.

Most importantly, gameplay becomes less strategic and more rote hacking as you reduce detections. I think moving in that direction would make the game less interesting. I suppose if you assume the players have to detect, and by removing spells you force them to carry more rods, there might be interesting slot tradeoffs, but I fear instead you would just encourage less interesting gameplay.

[Tiburon Silverflame]

To begin with, I think that "detect traps" should be removed in all its forms. Traps are pointless when everyone always detects them. But that's a different discussion. I consider illumination to be a detection spell, so at least I touched on that.

GAH!!! Can't let this pass by.
The point is, we *don't* always detect them. We forget. With no DetTraps at all, we're going to be nailed with more confusion, more stat drain, more equipment damage. We'll lose *vaults* because we forgot where the traps were in that particular arrangement...and hit a trapdoor.

BAD idea, IMO.

I think overly pigeonholing "priests get divinations, mages get attacks" is a seriously bad idea. To be honest, I think this whole discussion is probably on a completely wrong basis. It started with an implicit "I view wizard magic to be like *this*, and priest magic to be like *this*". This is an *extremely* dangerous approach, because virtually *every* thematic breakdown can be supported...and attacked as wrong. If you stay very general in your themes, you're typically safer...but don't push these to extremes.

For example: a very common clerical theme is healing. Does that mean arcanists can't heal themselves in *any* way, shape, or form? No; there are examples where arcanists have some access to healing magic. And, PD touted 'earth magic' as 'divine'...why? It's equally valid to assert it's another classical Hermetic element, and therefore just as much arcane.

Also, BTW: for the divine/arcane breakdown, Tolkien is irrelevant. Use 1st or 2nd Edition D&D as the breakdown. The spell names are *often* lifted straight from D&D. And don't even *try* to wring coherence or thematic consistency out of D&D; it never had it, it probably never *will* have it. (I had hopes for 4th Ed, but they were crushed completely.)

And actually, it's probably a darn good thing *anyway*. It's bloody damn easy to sacrifice game play onto the Hobgoblin Altar...as in, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of the little mind. It's a *game*. It's supposed to be *fun*. Don't go and do all kinda things that end up being not-fun...as PD noted, being forced to carry around a whole buncha rods for Detects is way more likely to just be Not-Fun.

A much better breakdown is to start by identifying the types of magic that are important:

--Deal damage
--Heal damage
--Impose conditions on opponents
--Remove conditions from @ (cure poison, remove fear)
--Buff @ (Heroism, Speed, temp resists)
--De-buff opponents
--Movement/escape magic
--Detection magic
--Strategic magic (Rock to Mud, Create Door, Destruction, etc.)

And note that things can be combined. Ice Storm is a spell that deals damage and imposes a condition (dazed). Perhaps mages have one particular set of conditions they tend to impose, while priests have another. Or perhaps priest spells never do both at once. There are other variants: priests are MUCH better at mob removal than mages right now (Dispel Evil and Dispel Undead being LOS, OoD growing to a size-3 ball) for much of the game...but are *awful* against tougher single targets, especially if those targets aren't evil. Mages are hosed by most any critter which has halfway decent hit points, and can resist fire and cold...so there's more ways to distinguish spells.

There's a great deal of room here for differentiation on *this* basis...after you get that done, you can play around with special effects. There is no notion of "earth magic". For combat magic, it'd be an attack resisted by Shards...which isn't in V for the PCs, to my knowledge. There's no temporary Shards resistance. There's strategic magic, Rock to Mud...but one has to seriously consider the implications of messing with this, because *all* characters face the same strategic questions.

[Nick]

Nice rant

I think overly pigeonholing "priests get divinations, mages get attacks" is a seriously bad idea. To be honest, I think this whole discussion is probably on a completely wrong basis. It started with an implicit "I view wizard magic to be like *this*, and priest magic to be like *this*". This is an *extremely* dangerous approach, because virtually *every* thematic breakdown can be supported...and attacked as wrong. If you stay very general in your themes, you're typically safer...but don't push these to extremes.

Thing is, there has to be a compromise between "accurate representation" and playability. It could be argued that priests wouldn't kill anything, but that would put a bit of a dampener on their viability. So you have an idea of what a priest could plausibly do, and an idea (like your list) of the options available, and you try to match them up. There's also a bit of window-dressing involved - for example, the same spell can be called "Holy Prayer" for priests and "Black Blessing" for Necromancers, and everyone's happy.

In short, you shouldn't over-pigeonhole, but under-pigeonholing is bad too.