Page 2 of 3

Re: True Flame and RP

Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 7:21 pm
by malcolm_mountainslayer
Rigela wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:41 pm .

Having just evocation magic is nice, but I do feel that just having them do destructive magic keeps with the same exact theme, but opens up a few more options to them than IGMS and a few other spells spam. Would also help with differentiating them from "fire based rp" (Which is nothing wrong with, if people do want to take a Trueflamer down that path, mind.)
Though mechanically similar, evocation and destruction magic are two very distinct/different themes.

One is your being and talent is purely destruction, other is "something out of nothing" which goes well for unlimited spellcasting and a character who isn't necessarily inspire/ or gifted in destruction at all. Unfortunately we lack more non offense evocation spells like wall of force or tenser's floating disk, so people associate evocation with destruction, its just massive raw energy happens to be great for damaging things, but can be channeled into other things.


Honestly, transmutation destroys much better between earthquakes and disintegration.

Re: True Flame and RP

Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:32 pm
by Aelryn Bloodmoon
Opustus wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:37 pm It's a difference of opinion we are discussing: I personally can't understand why the consistency of a school trumps consistency of the style of magic; I'm trying to understand why. Enjoying the single-school focus for it being cool is great, but can its coolness be somehow explained in terms I could understand? What makes it cool to you and others? Why should it being cool be more important than the rule of another consistent theme (e.g. destructive magic rather than evocation magic) which allows for more versatile gameplay options i.e. spells outside of the evocation school?
For me, I'm going to try to put this into words in terms of comparisons. Why does someone want to RP a specialist if it means they have to give up another school? Many people argue that tactically speaking the loss of a spell school (especially one like conjuration) isn't worth the extra spell per day, and NWN doesn't really give you any of the other incentives or disincentives of specializing (like choosing which schools to sacrifice so you can have specialists with different knowledge gaps).

It's specifically about that specialization in a school of magic- the idea that while you may be lacking elsewhere, your character has a more intimate understanding of their specialty than other casters. In the case of the TF, whether you want to call it a true flame, a flameborne, a sparkborne, or an Evomancer, these are bloodborne mages whose only use and mastery of magic over the school is based not on giving up just ONE other school of magic, but ALL of them, to focus solely on their specialty (and in fact, their only ability).

I take small RP liberties with that knowledge if I believe I'm in the company of people who won't be offended by them- for example, elevating the temperature of a room enough to become uncomfortably warm while standing close to Cev when he's angry, or the air around him literally lighting on fire. He's stood near a cliff and role-played a pyrotechnics show using nothing but evocation magics.

From my perspective, a true flame is a limitless font of evocation ability- the literal ability to create something from nothing more than the unending stream of magic that he was blessed with at birth - and only that magical ability - and as a result, they become more familiar with it, more comfortable with it, and better able to control it, than any other mage that spent their time learning to cast other schools of magic could ever hope to be in the same span of time. Creating something from magic is like drawing breath and exhaling it, and when magic isn't around, it's like a panic or an asthma attack - an empty feeling inside of absolute powerlessness after an entire life spent overflowing with nothing but endless power.

And yes, that includes darkness spells. :lol:

Hopefully that answers your question.

Edit: It's not that I'm opposed to the concept of the same path idea for other schools, I'm just invested in my character concept not changing. Rather than changing true flames, I'd rather see the option to pick a limitless one school path for the other schools added- conjuration only, enchantment only, illusion only, transmutation only, necromancy only... not sure divination only should be enabled without multiple warnings about its combat efficiency, though.

Re: True Flame and RP

Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:38 am
by Void
Kenji wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2020 7:47 pm There are voices for outright removal, which is fine. But I'd like to ask everyone to think deeper that if TF isn't being removed, what can be done better?
Nothing.

It is, currently, the most enjoyable and most well done class, mechanically, on arelith. THe most enjoyable, because you ahve to balance offence with full lack of defense, and need to think about what you're doing, and why you're doing that. You need to know the small repertoire of spells you get well, know their ranges, and so on.

Trying to "improve" it will only wreck it.

Nothing should be done about it. It is perfect. You could remove ability to use non-evocation potions again, though. This class should be protected from further modifications, if anything.

Re: True Flame and RP

Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2020 1:09 pm
by Nitro
While that is all subjective, I do agree. I think Trueflame is one of the more balanced classes on the server at the moment that really shines in its niche but has several glaring weaknesses that require other characters to cover.

Re: True Flame and RP

Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2020 1:32 pm
by Opustus
Aelryn Bloodmoon wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:32 pm ... a true flame is a limitless font of evocation ability- the literal ability to create something from nothing more than the unending stream of magic that he was blessed with at birth - and only that magical ability - and as a result, they become more familiar with it, more comfortable with it, and better able to control it, than any other mage that spent their time learning to cast other schools of magic could ever hope to be in the same span of time. Creating something from magic is like drawing breath and exhaling it, and when magic isn't around, it's like a panic or an asthma attack - an empty feeling inside of absolute powerlessness after an entire life spent overflowing with nothing but endless power.
So your rationale for the one-school class is the immersion of specialisation as based in the lore of the game world? I.e. Evocation is a certain type of magic, hence an evoker is a specialist caster who exemplifies that tradition and studies it deeply. My gripe with this is that the only thing that differentiates Evocation from other schools of magic is lore and that the way the spells have been categorised into schools is often very random. What's different about Burning hands and Fireball, really, that makes sense for Burning hands to be a transmutation spell and Fireball to be an evocation spell? The lore explanation could be that Fireball is a ball of fire made out of nothing, while Burning hands makes the hands of the caster burning, but this distinction feels forced and isn't apparent to the player. The categorisation of the spells into schools is probably based on a pretty haphazard process of making pieces fit, and I don't want the fact that somebody just decided that Burning hands is transmutation and Fireball is evocation dictate how classes are made up.

Would it break your immersion if you played your character's magic, even when that magic which is not of the evocation school, as making something out of nothing, just because it contradicts lore? Or would you feel comfortable taking this liberty--to overrule or interpret lore differently--in order to play the concept you wanted to play?

Re: True Flame and RP

Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:13 pm
by Aelryn Bloodmoon
Opustus wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2020 1:32 pm
Aelryn Bloodmoon wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:32 pm ... a true flame is a limitless font of evocation ability- the literal ability to create something from nothing more than the unending stream of magic that he was blessed with at birth - and only that magical ability - and as a result, they become more familiar with it, more comfortable with it, and better able to control it, than any other mage that spent their time learning to cast other schools of magic could ever hope to be in the same span of time. Creating something from magic is like drawing breath and exhaling it, and when magic isn't around, it's like a panic or an asthma attack - an empty feeling inside of absolute powerlessness after an entire life spent overflowing with nothing but endless power.
So your rationale for the one-school class is the immersion of specialisation as based in the lore of the game world? I.e. Evocation is a certain type of magic, hence an evoker is a specialist caster who exemplifies that tradition and studies it deeply. My gripe with this is that the only thing that differentiates Evocation from other schools of magic is lore and that the way the spells have been categorised into schools is often very random. What's different about Burning hands and Fireball, really, that makes sense for Burning hands to be a transmutation spell and Fireball to be an evocation spell? The lore explanation could be that Fireball is a ball of fire made out of nothing, while Burning hands makes the hands of the caster burning, but this distinction feels forced and isn't apparent to the player. The categorisation of the spells into schools is probably based on a pretty haphazard process of making pieces fit, and I don't want the fact that somebody just decided that Burning hands is transmutation and Fireball is evocation dictate how classes are made up.

Would it break your immersion if you played your character's magic, even when that magic which is not of the evocation school, as making something out of nothing, just because it contradicts lore? Or would you feel comfortable taking this liberty--to overrule or interpret lore differently--in order to play the concept you wanted to play?
So, as a side note, addressing your burning hands sentiment- you'll notice that the creators of NWN (bioware) reassigned some spell schools (if you're familiar with the table-top elements of magic), and that burning hands is one of them- they changed it to transmutation because if you notice, it's the only directly offensive spell the transmutation school has in NWN until the slow spell at third level spells. (Source: https://nwn.fandom.com/wiki/Category:So ... ard_spells ) Because of this, Lore-wise, I would be fine with the addition of burning hands to the list; you may or may not agree with my lore-based view of magic, but at the very least, my thought processes are consistent! :lol:

With that out of the way, the different schools of magic have very deeply established descriptions about how they work and what makes them different from each other- (source: https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOvervie ... ptions.htm ) and it's this logic and lore that I follow when I pursue the RP of a caster who studies spells in their field, esepecially to the exclusion of others.

Would I be uncomfortable? Not personally, but I would feel bad for several reasons- one, I'm flouting lore that other people may rightly be basing their character on; wouldn't it be unfair of me that, just because I know burning hands is an evocation spell in table-top, that I tell another player who uses it "oh, you're talented with evocation magics!" even if they can't cast any evocation spells according to their character sheet and they want to RP it as such? Does my creative liberty supercede their adhesion to the lore? WYSIWYG, and both darkness, light, and fireball are evocation spells according to the game. (I wouldn't be against burning hands being evocation, but that would suck for the transmutation specialist at level 1, and I have plenty of other options already.)

There are all sorts of aspects of magic that are left open-ended for the sake of RP- I prefer to take my liberties there. In my mind, every mage in Faerun with a rank in spellcraft knows the established difference between an evocation and a conjuration, even though some spells from the two schools might seem like they have some area of overlap. They know because that knowledge is part of the foundation of how they learned to cast spells in the first place, and that knowledge influences the character's feat (life) choices to better perform in their field (SF: Evo vs. SF: Transmutation).

While it wouldn't shatter my concept to play some of those other spells as being of the "Evocation" school, I would want the game world to mechanically change that so it was actually the case, both to support WYSIWYG, and in order to facilitate the RP of the discovery of why that magic changed- just like when Forgotten Realms moved from 2nd edition to 3rd edition, and Mystra died and magic went all kinds of crazy, then she was replaced, and the rules of magic were reorganized somewhat, making healing spells conjuration spells. In this event, you have a lore-based narrative that explains the change, so that characters whose knowledge was established in a previous edition can have an IC means of comprehending the change.

I'm not opposed to a Path of Destruction but I don't want it conflated with the PotTF, which was introduced as being locked to evocation, not an element or cross-school theme of spells, despite the name of their path. I think both paths would have merit, but I believe trying to jam it into true flame is both mechanically unnecessary for the class to be fun/viable, and counter to the established lore of the path since its creation.

My own character continued to believe raising scrolls and potions wouldn't work for him for quite a while after the change (which is why he's still holding a mundane Stone of Resurrection even though it's 10lbs of weight- because the rules of magic have changed several times on this island, he keeps it in case it reverts.) IC, I experimented with different items to see which ones might be mundane even when they weren't flagged - this is also how he came to the conclusion that the summon monster book was somehow different, and capable of casting its own magic directly (rather than him being the vessel for a scroll by reading it). When I first came across one, it was not flagged as mundane, yet it gave me access to Summon Monster up to SM IV, at 5 charges per use.

Re: True Flame and RP

Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:36 pm
by malcolm_mountainslayer
I second the evocation band wagon. The table top schools actaully make a lot of sense and dot feel force, at least not until you get into splat books too much and those stupid conjure irbs that are "conjured and ignore SR" *insert rant about pathfinder being better* but before you get into 3.x' endless list of whatever you want spalt books, the schools for then most part are very intuitive with few exceptions for a few people (like mage armor being conjuration instead of abjuration, because it actsully summons armor and doesnt stack with armor youd normally wear)

Re: True Flame and RP

Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 8:18 am
by Opustus
Thanks for the explanation, Aelryn! I don't share your appreciation of source material and/or fascination with the spell school thematics, and I would feel unfazed to take a minor piss on it, but if it significantly disgruntled the demographic in favour of a faithful reading of tabletop canon, I wouldn't want to ruin anyone's fun however they derived it. At any rate, I can perceive a range of options to improve the class mechanically (and get rid of that ghastly darkness spam *testily professes diehard opinion*) that wouldn't conflict the evocation theme by loaning from too many spell schools.

Re: True Flame and RP

Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 12:26 pm
by Kenji
NegInfinity wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:38 am
Kenji wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2020 7:47 pm There are voices for outright removal, which is fine. But I'd like to ask everyone to think deeper that if TF isn't being removed, what can be done better?
Nothing.

It is, currently, the most enjoyable and most well done class, mechanically, on arelith. THe most enjoyable, because you ahve to balance offence with full lack of defense, and need to think about what you're doing, and why you're doing that. You need to know the small repertoire of spells you get well, know their ranges, and so on.

Trying to "improve" it will only wreck it.

Nothing should be done about it. It is perfect. You could remove ability to use non-evocation potions again, though. This class should be protected from further modifications, if anything.
Please refer to the posts below first and then tell us again why changing some aspects of TF would be a bad idea. I can tell you keeping it the exact same is a bad idea. Two glaring problems are:
Name of the path
Darkness spam
Kenji wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2020 4:55 am Remove Darkness from TF’s list of available spells. It doesn’t fit the path thematically and overlaps with the Warlock’s darkness spam.

...

Path of True Flame should be renamed to something else to avoid limiting one's RP. Most (but not all) have taken the mechanical name too literally when the path itself has so much more to offer. This goes for both those who play TFs and play with TFs.
Rigela wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:41 pm While not having really played a Trueflame I did play a fiendlock and never really liked the darkness spam, mostly due to how trivial it made content as found 90% of the time it ended up with the enemies just not doing anything, or if they did run out of it they still stood still or could be killed by summon/eldritch blast/other PCs without fighting back. Just made me feel like I was being cheesy so I often ended up just not using it. (It also provides great annoyance for many in picking loot up if you can't dispel it easily like a warlock can)

As for providing lore for them, I'm uncertain on that. That they are so open is a big appeal as can allow for great potential to be done with them and where it all comes from. That should be easy enough to do though I think, but giving them a different name to their current one could also be a nice start to help people think of them outside the "firey box" of where to take them, or for others to just not instally go "Oh, Trueflamer" and instantly assume some sort of firey RP around them.

Having just evocation magic is nice, but I do feel that just having them do destructive magic keeps with the same exact theme, but opens up a few more options to them than IGMS and a few other spells spam. Would also help with differentiating them from "fire based rp" (Which is nothing wrong with, if people do want to take a Trueflamer down that path, mind.)
Also, please read this part:
Kenji wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:07 am When I used the word, "improve", I did not necessarily mean a buff to TFs... TFs are good for clearing mobs, if there aren't already WMs in the party that kills the mobs before more than a spell is fired off from the TF. Darkness spam felt very cheap and, as much as I still rely on it from time to time, TFs might be better off not having access to the spell for both thematic purposes and not embracing the darkness cheese meta when it comes to farming mobs. A TF can still perform without Darkness, the spell just made the whole ordeal a tad bit cheesy the moment the TF gets access to it.

Re: True Flame and RP

Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 12:33 pm
by Morgy
I don't play TFs, but as one who has partied with them numerous times I find them tedious to group with. The darkness spam makes almost all the content incredibly easy and although it isn't - it feels like an exploit in how overpowered it is in PvM.

That's my short opinion on the matter. I do not like this game play style.

Re: True Flame and RP

Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:10 pm
by Kenji
To quickly summarize the current discussions and how they have forked off from the original post, there are three main things we're discussing:
Name of the Path: to embrace or to change
People can roleplay the path as an Icemistress of Auril, descendent of Tiamat, dwarven runecaster with runes carved on its skin, a Fireborne of Kossuth, or etc. Immediately recognizing the mechanics of the path and imply the character is a True Flame or has fire-based RP are poor form when it could have been various other types of RP.

The name of the path can be changed to allow the players more creative freedom and further clarity on how the path would be approached, or...

Reinforce the name of the path by providing more in-depth homebrew lore to the path, making it a thing on Arelith. (I have yet to see this opinion voiced, so I'll assume this is not a popular one)

Darkness Spam: to have or not to have
While it is a part of the Evocation arsenal, given the infinite casting of TF, this spell quickly turns the class from having tactical plays into cheesing mechanics (even borderline exploit) against decade-old AIs. Trivializing regular PvM contents (namely grinds and mobs).

Theme of the Path: Destruction vs Evoker
There are various points brought up in regards to being an evocation specialist. This part I can't easily summarize what has been discussed but I respect those who wish for the path to remain true to being limited to Evocation spells only.

The points I would like to bring up then are:
The path is only available to evocation school but not the other ones.
The path is also initially named True Flame, but not Path of the Evoker.
We face an undefined path that is neither from the source-book nor is the infinite spellcasting lore-friendly. Leaving much of the path up to the interpretation of the players.

We can look at the currently available spells (thanks to Nitro for providing the quick count):
39 Evocation Spells

Now, if we remove darkness, and then add in the suggested "destructive" spells:
38 Evocation spells
5 Conjuration spells
2 Transmutation spells

The majority will still be Evocation. The self-imposed evocation school-only RP will still work. Those who wish to say they specialize in destructive magics will also work, but with more flavor (mostly the acidic spells). The spells on the list that should be taken in with more consideration before adding would be Mestil's Acid Sheath and Flame Arrow.

Both types of RP can be happy without stepping on one another's toes.

Furthermore, this will further blur away the line of the path existing solely for the purpose of being an evocation specialist or a destructive-magic focused caster, which can be a good thing. This brings us back to the original problem with the "Name of the Path", some of us want it to be undefined and allow as much player freedom as possible.

Re: True Flame and RP

Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:55 pm
by malcolm_mountainslayer
I feel like the name change has not been touched much because it is mostly inconsequential where changing the spell roster will both open and close concepts, this includes existing characters.

To me a "path of destruction" is even more limiting on my concepts. This is mostly in my head of course, the way people feel like they are actaully "True Flames". Where the balance of aesthetic tips in favour staying an evocation path for me is that "something out of nothing" seems to be very hand in hand with "unlimited power" for lack of more eloquent words. I don't think other schools infini casting would have the same feel (and definitely not balance)

Now I am going to argue against myself for a bit:

True Flame is a sorceror path, not an wizard path. Sorcerors don't have "school specialities" the way wizards do, but are often thematic te way Kenji would suggest. Something like a "path of destruction" makes more sense for a sorceror than a "path of evocation" (though the latter is still perfectly valid).

Ultimately I am against mechanical changes because it works as is and it ruins certain previous characters RPed around being evocation specialists and I hate changes like that.

As for a name change of the path, I just have not heard any alternatives that make me happy as I don't want to settle for something subpar stepping forward.

Re: True Flame and RP

Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 2:14 pm
by malcolm_mountainslayer
Kenji wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:10 pm To quickly summarize the current discussions and how they have forked off from the original post, there are three main things we're discussing:
Name of the Path: to embrace or to change
People can roleplay the path as an Icemistress of Auril, descendent of Tiamat, dwarven runecaster with runes carved on its skin, a Fireborne of Kossuth, or etc. Immediately recognizing the mechanics of the path and imply the character is a True Flame or has fire-based RP are poor form when it could have been various other types of RP.

The name of the path can be changed to allow the players more creative freedom and further clarity on how the path would be approached, or...

Reinforce the name of the path by providing more in-depth homebrew lore to the path, making it a thing on Arelith. (I have yet to see this opinion voiced, so I'll assume this is not a popular one)

Darkness Spam: to have or not to have
While it is a part of the Evocation arsenal, given the infinite casting of TF, this spell quickly turns the class from having tactical plays into cheesing mechanics (even borderline exploit) against decade-old AIs. Trivializing regular PvM contents (namely grinds and mobs).

Theme of the Path: Destruction vs Evoker
There are various points brought up in regards to being an evocation specialist. This part I can't easily summarize what has been discussed but I respect those who wish for the path to remain true to being limited to Evocation spells only.

The points I would like to bring up then are:
The path is only available to evocation school but not the other ones.
The path is also initially named True Flame, but not Path of the Evoker.
We face an undefined path that is neither from the source-book nor is the infinite spellcasting lore-friendly. Leaving much of the path up to the interpretation of the players.

We can look at the currently available spells (thanks to Nitro for providing the quick count):
39 Evocation Spells

Now, if we remove darkness, and then add in the suggested "destructive" spells:
38 Evocation spells
5 Conjuration spells
2 Transmutation spells

The majority will still be Evocation. The self-imposed evocation school-only RP will still work. Those who wish to say they specialize in destructive magics will also work, but with more flavor (mostly the acidic spells). The spells on the list that should be taken in with more consideration before adding would be Mestil's Acid Sheath and Flame Arrow.

Both types of RP can be happy without stepping on one another's toes.

Furthermore, this will further blur away the line of the path existing solely for the purpose of being an evocation specialist or a destructive-magic focused caster, which can be a good thing. This brings us back to the original problem with the "Name of the Path", some of us want it to be undefined and allow as much player freedom as possible.
This will ultimately be something some devs need to be passionate about. If it it were not foe the recent argument about grandfathering, I would support your changes with the caveat of old true flames having the option to not change.

Re: True Flame and RP

Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 2:21 pm
by MissEvelyn
In Darkness's defense, the root of the problem is in how the monsters and NPCs react to it, not in the spell itself.
As it is right now, it's better than stealth and Improved Invisibility in PvE, because it renders the monsters useless and stupid 75% of the time.

If the AI wasn't so bad, Darkness wouldn't be a problem - and we could even consider giving unlimited Darkness to Shadow Mages. But that can't be good with how terrible the AI is. We call it borderline exploit already with Warlocks and TFs using it.

Re: True Flame and RP

Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:05 pm
by Void
Kenji wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 12:26 pm Please refer to the posts below first and then
This is a public discussion, and I will respond to any post I want, in any manner I deem necessary, thank you.
Kenji wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 12:26 pm tell us again why changing some aspects of TF would be a bad idea.
Because it will wreck existing class that is well balanced, fun to play and challenging at the same time.
Kenji wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 12:26 pm Name of the path
Name doesn't matter. It is irrelevant. Class name is largely OOC information. It can be called "supreme potato" for all I care, as long as it functions the same way.

It is "unchained evoker" mechanically. That's what matters.
Kenji wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 12:26 pm Darkness spam
Have you played the class 1-30? or at least 1-21.
That's not a problem, because you are not safe in darkness.

Monsters can and will target you in darkened area and dealing with that is part of being a true flame.
Additionally you do not have access to ultravision, and can't see a thing in darkness yourself.
Kenji wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2020 4:55 am Remove Darkness from TF’s list of available spells. It doesn’t fit the path thematically and overlaps with the Warlock’s darkness spam.
That's a very bad idea. TF has something like 3 defensive spells total, and you want to nuke one of them.
Kenji wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2020 4:55 am Path of True Flame should be renamed to something else to avoid limiting one's RP.

The way I see it, the name doesn't matter. FR has a huge world with tons of mysteries and magics in them, and there's no reason to even think that every true flame works the same way.
Nothing limits your RP, as you can call yourself whatever you want, as TrueFlame is not even a class name. It is a path.

Kenji wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2020 4:55 am Most (but not all) have taken the mechanical name too literally when the path itself has so much more to offer. This goes for both those who play TFs and play with TFs.
That's their problem and not path problem. Can't blame the path for people not trying to imagine alternative explanation.
Kenji wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2020 4:55 am
Rigela wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:41 pm While not having really played a Trueflame I did play a fiendlock and never really liked the darkness spam, mostly...
They should really play trueflame first. Warlock is a very different thing.
Kenji wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2020 4:55 am Having just evocation magic is nice, but I do feel that just having them do destructive magic keeps with the same exact theme,
Please propose implementing that as a different path, rather than trying to wreck trueflame which would affect every person playing it. Thank you.

-------------
malcolm_mountainslayer wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 2:14 pm Name of the Path: to embrace or to change
...
Darkness Spam: to have or not to have
...
Theme of the Path: Destruction vs Evoker
...
Name of the Path --> Irrelevant. True flame works. It is just what those types of sorcerers are often called. Doesn't mean that's the way you're using.
Darkness Spam --> Keep. I got murdered in darkness plenty of times. It's not a panacea.
Theme of the Path: Destruction vs Evoker --> Evoker. If you want "Destruction" path, implement it as a separate one. Altering true flame will affect players of trueflame. While implementing a new path won't affect existing players.

Possible improvement --> Remove ability to use scrolls and potions from non-evocation schools. And raise dead scrolls.

...

Basically, it is a common theme on some PW to have forums where people spend hours coming up with new and amazing ways to wreck features used by other users. I would prefer if this didn't happen here.

Altering trueflame will affect people that play the class, and removing features from it will affect them negatively. There are people with established stories, biographies and so on. Alteration will ruin their game. That's what matters. Lore explanations are secondary to that. People first, lore second.

And regarding lore, the explanation can be left to the player. The lore doesn't exactly explain how some of the magic works in many cases, and only hints things like "bards CLAIM that they descend from dragons". Meaning that isn't necessarily true. The world is huge and has lots of mysteries in them. That could be one of them. I mean, there are folks out there that hunt for green rocks in order to achieve power. Why not an unlimited evoker.

And regarding evocation specialization, a true flame is not necessarily an evocation specialist.

Have fun.

Re: True Flame and RP

Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:23 pm
by Kenji
NegInfinity wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:05 pmsnipped
I have played three TFs, one of them from 1-30, the second from 1-14, the third from 1-6.

Here are the builds I made for them.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

I find it odd you’re thinking they only have 3 defensive spells when their offensive spells can be used just as effectively as a defensive one.

Have you played the class yourself at all or are you simply venting off some steam?

As for the rest of your post, I don’t think I’ll bother dignifying them with a response given your tone. Much as I like to remain objective in these types of discussions.

Re: True Flame and RP

Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:31 pm
by Void
Kenji wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:23 pm Have you played the class yourself at all or are you simply venting off some steam?
Yes, I played the class myself, made it into epics, and was member of The Arcane Tower with it before retiring the char.
Kenji wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:23 pm As for the rest of your post, I don’t think I’ll bother dignifying them with a response given your tone.
Kenji wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:23 pm Much as I like to remain objective in these types of discussions.
You can't remain objective as a human being. Your judgement is subjective by definition.
In this case, the "problem" of true flame exists only in your perception/interpretation, which does not mean everybody else is going to agree with you.

As for "not bother with dignifying them with a response", this kind of thing works best when you also "not bother" to notify the other party about your "intent to not reply". Because when you reply and say that you're not going to reply, it means you have already replied and broke your own promise not to reply with that reply you just made where you said where you won't reply.

Kinda diminshes the effect, and gives definite "here, take THAT!" impression.
-------------

By the way, I already said what a good way to improve the class could be. You haven't noticed because of the whole dignifying thing.

Remove ability to use non-evocation magic from any source. That's the way the class worked in the beginning. Mundane items only, no magic potions.

Re: True Flame and RP

Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:59 pm
by malcolm_mountainslayer
NegInfinity wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:31 pm
Kenji wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:23 pm Have you played the class yourself at all or are you simply venting off some steam?
Yes, I played the class myself, made it into epics, and was member of The Arcane Tower with it before retiring the char.
Kenji wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:23 pm As for the rest of your post, I don’t think I’ll bother dignifying them with a response given your tone.
Kenji wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:23 pm Much as I like to remain objective in these types of discussions.
You can't remain objective as a human being. Your judgement is subjective by definition.
In this case, the "problem" of true flame exists only in your perception/interpretation, which does not mean everybody else is going to agree with you.

As for "not bother with dignifying them with a response", this kind of thing works best when you also "not bother" to notify the other party about your "intent to not reply". Because when you reply and say that you're not going to reply, it means you have already replied and broke your own promise not to reply with that reply you just made where you said where you won't reply.

Kinda diminshes the effect, and gives definite "here, take THAT!" impression.
-------------

By the way, I already said what a good way to improve the class could be. You haven't noticed because of the whole dignifying thing.

Remove ability to use non-evocation magic from any source. That's the way the class worked in the beginning. Mundane items only, no magic potions.
I am not sure how re-crippling true flames is an improvement. I do not perceive them currently brocken

Re: True Flame and RP

Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:21 pm
by Void
malcolm_mountainslayer wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:59 pm I am not sure how re-crippling true flames is an improvement. I do not perceive them currently brocken
Regarding the reasoning. The true flame character I mentioned was made in time where the restriction was in place, and it added enjoyable layer of difficulty, while making you take your restriction seriously. You get a great reward for a great price, and you had to work aroudn it. The restriction fit the theme of the path ("Conduit of pure evocation"), and when it was removed, it cheapened the experience, as it lessened the impact of "evocation only". It also encouraged party play.

I understand why the restriction was lifted, of course, but if it were brought back, I would view this positiviely. It fits the theme of the class and it makes sense.
On other hand, removal of darkness from the repertoire is hard to see as anything other as slap in the face without much reason to it ("All evocation spells! Except darkness. Because screw you" (/joke)).

However, this is just something that I would enjoy if it happened, something that would be an icing on the cake from the experience. And not something I'd actively try to get brought back. I liked this when it was part of the experience, and that is it.

P.S. Obviously this kind of change would need to be implemented with grandfathering enabled as in order to not annoy people.

Re: True Flame and RP

Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:04 pm
by Rigela
malcolm_mountainslayer wrote: Mon Feb 03, 2020 7:21 pm One is your being and talent is purely destruction, other is "something out of nothing" which goes well for unlimited spellcasting and a character who isn't necessarily inspire/ or gifted in destruction at all. Unfortunately we lack more non offense evocation spells like wall of force or tenser's floating disk, so people associate evocation with destruction, its just massive raw energy happens to be great for damaging things, but can be channeled into other things.

Honestly, transmutation destroys much better between earthquakes and disintegration.
I do pretty much agree with you. I just feel that would nice to give Trueflames some more options, as it feels (from what I've been partied with them) that their party friendly spells aren't so many and many resort to the trusty IGMS. An issue with NWN and its choice of evocation spells perhaps than Trueflames themselves.

Fixing this with a wider variety of evocation spells could be one option, or some "evocation perk" unique to them that can give them more options than BLAST, as can see the arguements for keeping them "just evocation" as well as for opening them up to "destructive magic"

Re: True Flame and RP

Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:46 pm
by Nitro
TF's have the following party friendly spells categorized by spell level. AOE spells underlined:
1: Magic Missile, Ice Dagger, Persistent Blade, Chromatic Orb
2: Darkness (Ultravision is easy to come by), Flame Weapon, Combust, Scorching Ray
3: Sound Lance
4: Elemental Shield, ILMS, Wall of Fire, Wall of Ice, Bigbys Disrupting
5: Ball Lightning, Firebrand, Bigbys Interposing
6: Chain Lightning, Bigby's Forceful, IGMS
7: Bigby's Grasping
8: Bigby's Clenched
9: Meteor Swarm, Bigby's Crushing

There certainly isn't a small amount of spells, both single target and AOE, that are party-friendly. A lot of TF's fall into the trap of just casting IGMS and Firebrand, both useful spells but far from the only useful ones in the repetoire. Most of the big green hand spells are very potent spammable CC, Meteor Swarm demolishes groups of enemies, damage walls can be layered and used to exploit elemental weaknesses together with empower metamagic for 100+ damage per wall and darkness is a great utility spell for the whole parties survivability.

As for Darkness, I don't think it's as big an issue as to warrant removal, plenty of other classes make just as much use of it beyond the two modern infinicasters who have it, a wand/potion of darkness is a very cheap way to give yourself ghetto concealment and mess with NPC AI. A solution here would be to have more mobs on the module with access to ultravision instead.

Re: True Flame and RP

Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 8:48 pm
by Aelryn Bloodmoon
Just wanted to follow up on that list malcolm provided (thanks!) in regard to the selection of party friendly spells. A lot of people fall into the "trap" of using only IGMS and firebrand because of mechanical efficiency- they aren't the only useful spells, but they do provide the easiest to target AoE burst and single-target spike damage. Firebrand is almost a full screen's radius from the target point, and on a screen filled with enemies, it is usually a more secure way to hit everything than chain lightning without nuking your party - with the caveat that this full-screen AoE also does not use spell components. Neither does IGMS.

Chain lightning doesn't use components, but depending on how the enemies on screen move while you're casting (such as splitting up), it isn't uncommon for the chain lightning to hit only some of the enemies. Firebrand isn't limited by the distance from one enemy to the next- if an enemy is close enough to the point of origin, they get hit.

These three spells provide the highest damage totals possible over the largest screen area without use of spell components or risk to party members. You can run an entire dungeon alternating between Firebrand, Chain Lightning, and Igms- off the top of my head I can't think of a single location on the server that has mobs immune to all three, unless the mobs are immune to magic or have an SR higher than 32.

Ball Lightning is similar to Firebrand on Arelith, but its targeting mechanism is not the same (creature only) and this makes it less reliable if the enemies split up.

For single-target damage, unless the target has magic damage resistance, nothing outperforms a maximized IGMS- except, sometimes, an empowered one, which can land a potential 360 damage on a target. Meteor swarm can compete with this for 3 components, if you can land one of the new ice spells (being mindful to not blast your party, because they're full-pvp) for components beforehand and give your target(s) vulnerability to fire.

If you're confident in the placement of your full-pvp spells, you can outpace these spells with a more varied selection, but only on a situational basis.

Re: True Flame and RP

Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:21 pm
by malcolm_mountainslayer
NegInfinity wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:21 pm
malcolm_mountainslayer wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:59 pm I am not sure how re-crippling true flames is an improvement. I do not perceive them currently brocken
Regarding the reasoning. The true flame character I mentioned was made in time where the restriction was in place, and it added enjoyable layer of difficulty, while making you take your restriction seriously. You get a great reward for a great price, and you had to work aroudn it. The restriction fit the theme of the path ("Conduit of pure evocation"), and when it was removed, it cheapened the experience, as it lessened the impact of "evocation only". It also encouraged party play.

I understand why the restriction was lifted, of course, but if it were brought back, I would view this positiviely. It fits the theme of the class and it makes sense.
On other hand, removal of darkness from the repertoire is hard to see as anything other as slap in the face without much reason to it ("All evocation spells! Except darkness. Because screw you" (/joke)).

However, this is just something that I would enjoy if it happened, something that would be an icing on the cake from the experience. And not something I'd actively try to get brought back. I liked this when it was part of the experience, and that is it.

P.S. Obviously this kind of change would need to be implemented with grandfathering enabled as in order to not annoy people.
True flames were originally introduced long before spell focus benefits and everywhere wands and umd meta shops. So like a sorceror or a wizard with greater spell focus evocation didn't get unlimited magic missles or conjuration acid arrows + summon buffs.

After potion changes,RP wise they still could not cast other schools, not even umd themselves to wands. It kind of made no sense that you were somehow immune to potions (like what kind of monster doesn't feel the effect of healing potions!?) and the path needed a little bit of love considering how much Arelith meta had evolved.

Re: True Flame and RP

Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:00 am
by Kenji
Nitro wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:46 pm TF's have the following party friendly spells categorized by spell level. AOE spells underlined:
1: Magic Missile, Ice Dagger, Persistent Blade, Chromatic Orb
2: Darkness (Ultravision is easy to come by), Flame Weapon, Combust, Scorching Ray
3: Sound Lance
4: Elemental Shield, ILMS, Wall of Fire, Wall of Ice, Bigbys Disrupting
5: Ball Lightning, Firebrand, Bigbys Interposing
6: Chain Lightning, Bigby's Forceful, IGMS
7: Bigby's Grasping
8: Bigby's Clenched
9: Meteor Swarm, Bigby's Crushing

There certainly isn't a small amount of spells, both single target and AOE, that are party-friendly. A lot of TF's fall into the trap of just casting IGMS and Firebrand, both useful spells but far from the only useful ones in the repetoire. Most of the big green hand spells are very potent spammable CC, Meteor Swarm demolishes groups of enemies, damage walls can be layered and used to exploit elemental weaknesses together with empower metamagic for 100+ damage per wall and darkness is a great utility spell for the whole parties survivability.
With all due respect, to call it "fall into a trap" for just casting IGMS and Firebrand sounds like someone who'd only look at things on the paper level rather than having extensively played the path would say. And there's a reason why these two spells dominate the field, even with new spells available.

Here is an overview:

Ice Dagger is fired at short range and that's usually nowhere a TF wants to be, the same goes for Combust. At early levels, the defensive casting mode will probably cause more concentration check failures than taking actual damage from the enemies. It only starts to stabilize after reaching early teens.

ILMS is replaced in 4 levels upon getting access to IGMS.

Scorching Ray and Chromatic Orb are both ranged touch attacks, they may seem potent on paper, especially maximized, but they still have the potential to miss at low levels. The exception being unless the TF utilize ways to increase the ranged attack AB via holding a ranged weapon with +AB and/or build into more dex. An odd but possible thing for TF. But they are better off casting sure-hit spells.

The bigby spams are, in the end, CC spells, and at a less efficient level compared to darkness. And action economy is very important to TFs. Spending 1 round reducing an enemy AB by 10 vs 1 round putting one enemy out of commission by knocking him over? The interposing hand isn't used as much, but it occasionally has its uses vs high saves mobs that also have high AB. Those are often few and far in between. Made less so when the TF's own AC is often too low to have Bigby's Interposing Hand to have any considerable effect when soloing.

As for Wall of Fire/Ice spamming, while it is probably the most potent thing to do behind a doorway and protecting the TF from any melee approaches, it often takes time to build up a considerable amount before the walls one-shot any encroaching enemy. Before getting quicken or auto-quicken along with maximized/empowered Wall of Fire/Ice, the teammates often have finished the fight long before a considerable amount is built up. Usually, it takes some communication and the strategy is then used to one-shot boss creatures. Unless the TF has a considerable amount of haste potions to burn through, which is quite possible.

Sound Lance is a nice addition for more sonic damage and being fort save instead of reflex save countered many of those evasion mobs like wolves.

Chained Lightning has a diminishing effect after the first enemy, even after maximized. Here are the numbers:
120, 60, 30, 15 [Correction Edit: 120 for main target, 60 for the rest, half again at successful ref saves]
Maximized IGMS does 120 on two targets if there aren't a third. Overall, IGMS still deals more damage and Maximized Ball Lightning will likely produce better results than Chained Lightning. The only thing about the spell is the burst in single-target damage and the ability to continue moving faster than after the spell is cast. Casting IGMS and ILMS gets the TF stuck in place for longer than most other spells. But for as long as the TF is casting in darkness, chained lightning can usually be ignored at this point.

This really leaves us with the following damaging spells that top the board:
Sound Lance, maximized at 80, small AoE, vs Fort instead of Ref saves.
IGMS, maximized at 240 with two targets, engine draw distance range, weakened by multiple enemies that spread out the damage.
Firebrand, maximized at 90 with unlimited targets, but able to target on both enemies and the ground, vs Ref saves.
Ball Lightning, same as Firebrand, but can only target enemies, not the ground, vs Ref saves.
Meteor Swarm, at a rate of 3 spell components per cast, unless it's a Harper Mage Build, it is best saved for places like Endless Battlefield and the Twins.
Iceberg really deserves an honorable mention even if it's not a party friendly spell. The frost CC as well as massive, targetable AoE makes it the most potent spell to pull with. But it is to be cast with caution when near both allies and the TF.

Note that fire spells have next to no use in RDI. Hence Wall of Ice, Iceberg, and Sound Lance are nice to use especially in its tight corridors. It is the one time where IGMS may not be as potent to spam. But this is only after the hak update where these spells are added. Before then, it was mostly Ball of Lightning and IGMS spam, and the bosses having magic DI makes TF almost exclusively a darkness spam machine on that rock.

But for the majority of the time, IGMS and Firebrand with their ease of use and general immediate burst rather than needing time to build up like wall of fire and ice, not to forget the walls are stationary, IGMS have the range, firebrand has the unlimited count for AoE possibilities. There is a reason why the two are often used.

The contender would be Sound Lance, Meteor Swarm, and Iceberg. Sound Lance might not be as potent as IGMS or Firebrand, but it is a nice alternative. Meteor Swarm and Iceberg, being level 9 spells, aren't immediately accessible to lower level TFs and the component cost should be taken into consideration.

Re: True Flame and RP

Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:27 am
by Kenji
MissEvelyn wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 2:21 pm In Darkness's defense, the root of the problem is in how the monsters and NPCs react to it, not in the spell itself.
As it is right now, it's better than stealth and Improved Invisibility in PvE, because it renders the monsters useless and stupid 75% of the time.

If the AI wasn't so bad, Darkness wouldn't be a problem - and we could even consider giving unlimited Darkness to Shadow Mages. But that can't be good with how terrible the AI is. We call it borderline exploit already with Warlocks and TFs using it.
Nitro wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:46 pm As for Darkness, I don't think it's as big an issue as to warrant removal, plenty of other classes make just as much use of it beyond the two modern infinicasters who have it, a wand/potion of darkness is a very cheap way to give yourself ghetto concealment and mess with NPC AI. A solution here would be to have more mobs on the module with access to ultravision instead.
Since Darkness is touched upon, I may as well respond to you both. I very much agree with MissEvelyn in regards to Darkness. And certain mobs do have UV available. Not enough of them do, however, and that still makes most of the contents trivial.

It is as Opustus said prior: when the spell is used with spell slot restrictions in mind, the other casters need to use it sparingly and can't just spam it senseless in between every single pull.

We should keep in mind that Darkness potions and wands have a very short duration. Their CLs are 3, which is 3 rounds. They are more of a niche product for tactical use rather than lasting long enough for every single encounter.

Having more of the mobs have access to UV is certainly a way to approach it, at the same time, it would render those who'd utilize the potion/wands and the limited slot caster's darkness not as effective as before.

After reading some of your posts, the outright removal of darkness for TF and Warlocks may intrude upon those who wish to retain their evocation RP.

Maybe put a cooldown timer on Darkness spells that are cast. This way, it will need to be utilized at the right moment without it completely messing with the PvM nature of things.