ROCKS FOR CASTERS

Yea the wand damage is limited to times per day equal to your spells slots no matter how many wands you buy at logistics.

I agree that once a caster gets a few 9th level spells (once you can get any 4 is not that hard) the wands are sweet. My point was that from 0 to 73 (for your first level 9 spell) you add no damage to the wand. There is a big gap initially where low level (3rd to 8th) casters will have a hard time wanting wands since they don't get improved at all really.

To illustrate the point that its not really a balanced improvement until you get a column... (not that I'm trying to trash the new stuff just talking politely about it.) =)

0 to 72 1 damage (72bp spent on spells)
73 to 85 2 damage (12bp spent on spells)
86 to 94 3 damage (8bp spent on spells)
95 to 100 4 damage (5bp spent on spells)

and then add 1 damage for every added column (25 bp)
 

paythin

Adept
You have to take into account that a wand should not be your main source of damage dealing, it's meant to be a support tool for celestial casters and the spells they already have.
 
Yes, that is true. Casters are limited in the respect of "if we end up fighting over 100 monsters in a day the caster is gonna run out of spells before the fighter can't lift his arm any more" part of things. For a long time I thought that this comparasin/argument had some small bit of validity, but I'm starting to not see it any more. I've played the extreme versions of both of these character types, so I know of what I speak when I say they are both cool as far as what they're potential is, it comes down to the players and what they are willing to put into them to get the most out of your char. Fighters are easy, anyone can play a fighter, you hit things and they hit back, and you try to hit them more times harder than they hit you. As long as you get healing, you're good. Casters gotta learn judgement on how to use thier spells to maximum efficiency, they have to think their fights through, and they have to judge their opponents as to their vulnerability to their spells, what school,..... it goes on and on. Scholars take more work, but for someone who is willing to put it in and learn how to be an effective combat mage, it can be done, and it can be sexy, but you have to be willing to do more than just go through logistics, get your tags, and huck packets at monsters. Beyond that, you have to be willing to admit to yourself and all those around you that no, you can't go all out every fight with the blazing hooptyness. You just can't. But when you do, it'll be a heck of a show and it will MATTER.
 

jpariury

Duke
I think that until there is a printed manual with final wording, and any necessary corrections made, much of the discussion about how much damage the upcoming wand change will put into the hands of Celestialists is a tad premature. What is discussed and considered understood in planning often differs from what is put into production.
 
As a low level caster, even getting an additional dozen or two shots of elemental damage that is non-blockable by weapons or shields can be a huge boost to your usefullness. No, it doesn't make it so you could then just run around blasting critters on your own with it, but then again it shouldn't. YOU"RE LOW LEVEL! Against low level monsters it'll still be decent damage, and against medium monsters it's a great distraction to allow your meat shields to get in there and finish em off. It's a damage source that takes no additional build expenditure ( there is no Use Wand skill needed unlike a weapon skill) so you're getting this extra damage for the cost of the wand. And yes, even though the wands effectiveness does ramp up rather fast at that critical juncture where they're finishing off their four column, so does their magical power. Suddendly instead of one Prison, they've got three, and in only a couple of levels! So in that sense the wand truly does reflect the power of the magic in the character, not the magic inherent in the wand itself.
 

Alavatar

Baron
Dreamingfurther said:
0 to 68 - 1 damage (68bp spent on spells)
73 to 81 - 2 damage (13bp spent on spells)
86 to 90 - 3 damage (9bp spent on spells)
95 - 4 damage (5bp spent on spells)
100 - 5 damge (5bp spent on spells)
The math didn't add up in your original post (72+12+8+5 = 97) and my OCDness compelled me to correct it. Sorry. :oops:
 
Dreamingfurther wrote:

0 to 68 - 1 damage (68bp spent on spells)
73 to 81 - 2 damage (13bp spent on spells)
86 to 90 - 3 damage (9bp spent on spells)
95 - 4 damage (5bp spent on spells)
100 - 5 damge (5bp spent on spells)



The math didn't add up in your original post (72+12+8+5 = 97) and my OCDness compelled me to correct it. Sorry.
Tis okay. ;) I can make small little calculation errors...



While its true that a low level caster shouldn't be running around throwing lots of damage and its true that this skill is being added at no bp cost to the player my comment was simply aimed at the curve of the damage increase for the ability to use wands. For an extreme example...

A 6th level scholar if they have bought mostly spells will have their 1st 8th level spell. They are getting to be a pretty powerful spell caster and at this point the only advantage to their wand over a 3rd or 4th level player is that they can cast it about 10 times more per day. (at 1 elemental damage)
vs.
A 6th level fighter compared to a 3rd or 4th level fighter is going to have probably another prof and some PTD's

I am not saying wands are bad. I am not saying wands are weak and I'm not trying to just criticize the new rules. =) I'm just saying the advancement curve for wands damage output isn't really even until you hit 10th level or so. And although yes you get those 4 9th level spells without building above them no they don't come all that much faster because as a result of the increasing cost of the spell slots there and the decreasing speed that players get build at that level they still take a while.... =P
 
One big reason I can see for leaving it as is even with the imbalanced power curve is specifically to make it so the wand benefits pure casters above and beyond even templars and adepts who focus on their fighting more at low levels than their spells. If you based it on build points spent on spells to determine amount of damage at 25 per, you'd have fighters (alot of whom already spend build to get 1 celestial spell to cast Spell shield on down) pumping in 25 build to get base-2 wands, or even 50 to get base 3 (which would be a 5-4-3-1 shrub letting them cast 8th level scrolls and have 13 shots of wand power, I'd consider giving up a slay set for that), thus furthering the disparity of "why do fighters need C-mages anyway once the Wards are up and the swords spellcrafted when we've got wands and pocket scholars?"

So, by keeping them relatively weak at low levels of spell ability, you keep them in the hands of the scholarly types and enhance those who need it and don't do much at all for those who don't.
 
That is a good point that I hadn't thought of. Still I wouldn't get spells personaly even so as a fighter... but well said. =/
 

Gilwing

Baron
Alliance Logistics
jpariury said:
I think that until there is a printed manual with final wording, and any necessary corrections made, much of the discussion about how much damage the upcoming wand change will put into the hands of Celestialists is a tad premature. What is discussed and considered understood in planning often differs from what is put into production.
It is exactly the way you put it.....a DISCUSSION
 

Gilwing

Baron
Alliance Logistics
Maxondaerth said:
Yes, that is true. Casters are limited in the respect of "if we end up fighting over 100 monsters in a day the caster is gonna run out of spells before the fighter can't lift his arm any more" part of things. For a long time I thought that this comparasin/argument had some small bit of validity, but I'm starting to not see it any more. I've played the extreme versions of both of these character types, so I know of what I speak when I say they are both cool as far as what they're potential is, it comes down to the players and what they are willing to put into them to get the most out of your char. Fighters are easy, anyone can play a fighter, you hit things and they hit back, and you try to hit them more times harder than they hit you. As long as you get healing, you're good. Casters gotta learn judgement on how to use thier spells to maximum efficiency, they have to think their fights through, and they have to judge their opponents as to their vulnerability to their spells, what school,..... it goes on and on. Scholars take more work, but for someone who is willing to put it in and learn how to be an effective combat mage, it can be done, and it can be sexy, but you have to be willing to do more than just go through logistics, get your tags, and huck packets at monsters. Beyond that, you have to be willing to admit to yourself and all those around you that no, you can't go all out every fight with the blazing hooptyness. You just can't. But when you do, it'll be a heck of a show and it will MATTER.
I could say the same thing for casters....just stand behind the fighters and throw and things while they are distracted by the fighters. To say that Playing a fighter is easy because all you do is swing....thats wrong. It might be what you do but not me. "oh look its a goblin let me evs it..." thats a dumb fighter or you just want to waist your skills.
 
Maxondaerth said:
One big reason I can see for leaving it as is even with the imbalanced power curve is specifically to make it so the wand benefits pure casters above and beyond even templars and adepts who focus on their fighting more at low levels than their spells. If you based it on build points spent on spells to determine amount of damage at 25 per, you'd have fighters (alot of whom already spend build to get 1 celestial spell to cast Spell shield on down) pumping in 25 build to get base-2 wands, or even 50 to get base 3 (which would be a 5-4-3-1 shrub letting them cast 8th level scrolls and have 13 shots of wand power, I'd consider giving up a slay set for that), thus furthering the disparity of "why do fighters need C-mages anyway once the Wards are up and the swords spellcrafted when we've got wands and pocket scholars?"

So, by keeping them relatively weak at low levels of spell ability, you keep them in the hands of the scholarly types and enhance those who need it and don't do much at all for those who don't.
Wands are also intrinsically skewed more towards pure casters, as an adept or templar has to put away their weapons to use the wand.

Scott
 

Lurin

Duke
I just can't wait to make one with my Earth scholar, that 1 'Elemental Flame' is gonna scare the bejeezus out of at least one goblin, I guarntee it! (My earth scholar has 1 level 1 celestial spell for scroll usuage)
 

Ezri

Knight
HQ Staff
I might actually spend a bit more build on celestial as my caster to get to throw 2 elemental something.
 
if you already have earth as your primary school your going to be spending allot to get even 2 elemental...
 

paythin

Adept
Dreamingfurther said:
if you already have earth as your primary school your going to be spending allot to get even 2 elemental...
It's not as bad as one would think, my caster is dual school with a small pyramid in the works of my secondary especially if you go with a straight 4 block in both earth and Celestial.
 
No bad early on... but when you get to secondary school 9th level spell slots! Thats 10 build per... =\ a full 4 column in both is 300 build...
 

paythin

Adept
Dreamingfurther said:
No bad early on... but when you get to secondary school 9th level spell slots! Thats 10 build per... =\ a full 4 column in both is 300 build...
It's a cake walk! :lol:
 
I could say the same thing for casters....just stand behind the fighters and throw and things while they are distracted by the fighters. To say that Playing a fighter is easy because all you do is swing....thats wrong. It might be what you do but not me. "oh look its a goblin let me evs it..." thats a dumb fighter or you just want to waist your skills.[/quote]


I was more speaking to the strategy involved of conserving resources, allocating them to which fight/target, etc as far as ease of play.

I see a troll as a fighter, I'm thinking sword. I see one as a caster, I'm thinking fire, unless I'm out, then maybe binding, maybe lightning if they don't swing that hard.
I see an undead as a fighter, I'm thinking sword. I see one as a caster, I'm thinking okay no ice, if any of them speaks hit em with big boom, if not small binding will work.
I see kobolds as a fighter, I'm thinking sword. I see kobolds as a caster, I'm thinking maybe I won't even use spells, I'll use weapon, unless I get into body then mid stuff.
I see a dragon as a fighter, I"m thinking sword. I see dragon as a caster, I'm thinking fighter.

You see what I'm getting at there? As far as ease of playing a fighter, I'm talking about you can take anyone NPCing and plug them into a fighter with any level of stats, but take that same person and if they have no experience as a mage their going to make poor spell selection choices and not make the most of their stuff. So, I'm going to change my inferred statement to "In my experience in playing both a battle caster and a fighter, it is my opinion based on said experiences that it takes a lot more strategy and forethought to play a caster over the length of a weekend than it is a fighter."
 
Top