What's wrong with "I call forth a flame bolt.20 magic flame"

[ASFDan]

Re: What's wrong with "I call forth a flame bolt.20 magic fl

I currently play in another game where incants are mostly freeform (with certain requirements in order to identify what is being cast), and the effect is tacked onto the end (example: "I call upon the power of <Air> and magic to summon forth an <Air Jet>! Knockback 15!"). It's lots of fun to come up with interesting character specific incants, and with the effect tacked onto the end there's rarely any difficulty understanding what's happening.

In that vein I actually think it would be pretty cool if we could Draw upon the force of <Earth> to <Purify> you of foreign toxins and magic! Purify!

 

[SkollWolfrun]

Re: What's wrong with "I call forth a flame bolt.20 magic fl

of course, as much as I would support this...why does someone shouting 'HADOUKEN! 20 Flame!' keep running through my head?

 

[ASFDan]

Re: What's wrong with "I call forth a flame bolt.20 magic fl

Never underestimate the power of social pressure and minimum length requirements.

 

[Durnic]

Re: What's wrong with "I call forth a flame bolt.20 magic fl

Any of the above would just reinforce my decision to use my wand as my primary offensive weapon.
Usually the posts on this board to do with Evocation talk about how much it sucks and how to improve it, so its weird to read a thread that actually proposes to make it worse by making the incant longer.
To both improve Evocation AND make everyone know how much damage they take from the spell I would go with some more like "I call forth 20 flame". The verbal let's you know its a spell/magic and the verbal isn't made longer.
The problem with the above comes when using items as it could be confused with an Elemental Burst cast from an item (Activate 20 flame vs Activate 20 elemental flame). So maybe "I call forth 20 magic flame"?

-Steve

This is the kind of thing I want to see. Keeping the incant generally the same length while also including the obvious damage type and amount.

 

[Dan Nickname Beshers]

Re: What's wrong with "I call forth a flame bolt.20 magic fl

how do you do magic storms? seems like it would be a magic trickle then...

"I call forth a Magic Storm! 10 Magic Damage! 10 Magic Damage! 10 Magic Damage!"

The issue of the incants getting longer can be addressed if this change is part of a greater change increasing the length of all game verbals, which would have the benefit of slowing down all combat across the board, a stated goal of several folks on these boards.

 

[OrcFighterFTW]

Re: What's wrong with "I call forth a flame bolt.20 magic fl

I really like the idea of customizable incants so long as they are followed up with the out-of-game effect call. It would add tons of flavor and eliminate the lame "blown" casts at 3 am from physically exhausted people accidentally misstating the verbals ("I grant you the power of an Earth blade!" "Blown" "Dang it!" -has happened way too many times.)

 

[Celebolwa]

Re: What's wrong with "I call forth a flame bolt.20 magic fl

I would love to see the damage added onto the end of the incant ie. "I call forth a Dragons Breath. 40!"

But, do we really need to add that the spell was "magic"? What would that do to the "magic augmentation" high magic skill ? Would the incant be "Magic Dragons breath, Magic Fire 40"? How about "Magic Dragon's Breath 40."

All the while swing damage calls are high speed crazy. I can let off a spell doing 40 points of damage while the guy in front of me tore me to pieces do to unlimited swings and extremely fast(er) damage calls.

So, while I am all in for adding damage I am not in for make the incant for spells 1/3-2 times longer. :unsure:

(sorry for the edit, I wanted to add another question.) What about spells without a simple descriptor- "with eldritch force I build a prison. Magic Prison"? Or "I command you to be charmed. Magic Command?", "I call upon chaos to drain you. Necromancy drain?" There are more than a few spells that are far too complex in functionality to describe them at the end of the spell incant. Do you just add them to the Incants for damaging spells? Because if that is the case, I am going to be more than mildly perturbed.

 

[Undrask]

Re: What's wrong with "I call forth a flame bolt.20 magic fl

Any of the above would just reinforce my decision to use my wand as my primary offensive weapon.
Usually the posts on this board to do with Evocation talk about how much it sucks and how to improve it, so its weird to read a thread that actually proposes to make it worse by making the incant longer.
To both improve Evocation AND make everyone know how much damage they take from the spell I would go with some more like "I call forth 20 flame". The verbal let's you know its a spell/magic and the verbal isn't made longer.
The problem with the above comes when using items as it could be confused with an Elemental Burst cast from an item (Activate 20 flame vs Activate 20 elemental flame). So maybe "I call forth 20 magic flame"?

-Steve

I like it when they just call the effect. You got hit with a gorram white packet, I KNOW its magic.

I also like Mike V's solution

 

[RuneBrighteyes]

Re: What's wrong with "I call forth a flame bolt.20 magic fl

I would love to see the damage added onto the end of the incant ie. "I call forth a Dragons Breath. 40!"

But, do we really need to add that the spell was "magic"? What would that do to the "magic augmentation" high magic skill ? Would the incant be "Magic Dragons breath, Magic Fire 40"? How about "Magic Dragon's Breath 40."

All the while swing damage calls are high speed crazy. I can let off a spell doing 40 points of damage while the guy in front of me tore me to pieces do to unlimited swings and extremely fast(er) damage calls.

So, while I am all in for adding damage I am not in for make the incant for spells 1/3-2 times longer. :unsure:

I am basing this proposal from a stance of not caring about the length of incant, because I do not believe that incant length is the thing that is holding back spell casting in terms of power.

(sorry for the edit, I wanted to add another question.) What about spells without a simple descriptor- "with eldritch force I build a prison. Magic Prison"? Or "I command you to be charmed. Magic Command?", "I call upon chaos to drain you. Necromancy drain?" There are more than a few spells that are far too complex in functionality to describe them at the end of the spell incant. Do you just add them to the Incants for damaging spells? Because if that is the case, I am going to be more than mildly perturbed.

I am having trouble understanding what you mean in the above comment. Then again I have had a VERY long day.

I like it when they just call the effect. You got hit with a gorram white packet, I KNOW its magic.

I also like Mike V's solution

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I do not know the color of a packet that hits me in the back or at night. My desire to include the "magic" descriptor is done out of a pursuit of clarity and consistency.

Thank you to EVERYONE for your on topic and excellent comments and musings. I have enjoyed learning more from this discussion. It seems that adding the number to damaging spells is very supported- the implementation is the sticking point. Does that assessment seem correct?

 

[MaxIrons]

Re: What's wrong with "I call forth a flame bolt.20 magic fl

I like it when they just call the effect. You got hit with a gorram white packet, I KNOW its magic.

I also like Mike V's solution

Considering that white packet could actually be a "5 Flame" which isn't technically magic (evocation) but is elemental... :wacko:

 

[Talen]

Re: What's wrong with "I call forth a flame bolt.20 magic fl

Maybe the rule should be that the packet has to be thrown after the initial incant but it can be thrown before the damage call. That way, it doesn't really make the incant any longer.

That's how we do it. Incant, throw, if hit call the damage.

This also helps the NPCs when things are coming at them from all directions. Hearing "20 Flame Damage" is another signal to me to call a defence or take it.

This. It's how we do it at LAIRE, and it's a helluva lot less confusing to targets. Incant, throw, call effect (damage or otherwise).

 

[Gilwing]

Re: What's wrong with "I call forth a flame bolt.20 magic fl

Any of the above would just reinforce my decision to use my wand as my primary offensive weapon.
Usually the posts on this board to do with Evocation talk about how much it sucks and how to improve it, so its weird to read a thread that actually proposes to make it worse by making the incant longer.
To both improve Evocation AND make everyone know how much damage they take from the spell I would go with some more like "I call forth 20 flame". The verbal let's you know its a spell/magic and the verbal isn't made longer.
The problem with the above comes when using items as it could be confused with an Elemental Burst cast from an item (Activate 20 flame vs Activate 20 elemental flame). So maybe "I call forth 20 magic flame"?

-Steve

Give this man some Dragon Stamps. This is exactly what it should be. It includes every thing all while keeping the incant similar in length.

 

[RuneBrighteyes]

Re: What's wrong with "I call forth a flame bolt.20 magic fl

Any of the above would just reinforce my decision to use my wand as my primary offensive weapon.
Usually the posts on this board to do with Evocation talk about how much it sucks and how to improve it, so its weird to read a thread that actually proposes to make it worse by making the incant longer.
To both improve Evocation AND make everyone know how much damage they take from the spell I would go with some more like "I call forth 20 flame". The verbal let's you know its a spell/magic and the verbal isn't made longer.
The problem with the above comes when using items as it could be confused with an Elemental Burst cast from an item (Activate 20 flame vs Activate 20 elemental flame). So maybe "I call forth 20 magic flame"?

-Steve

Give this man some Dragon Stamps. This is exactly what it should be. It includes every thing all while keeping the incant similar in length.

I like this MUCH better than what we currently have. My concern is that in my opinion the incants might "lose something" in terms of tone (remember- I don't care how long they are. In fact I would vote for making up our own cool/long ones).

Another question is would incants like this allow for as much design space in terms of easily chaining effects and magic item/high magic enhancements- "With mystic force I web you. Magic Web Weakness" or "I call forth an Ice Bolt. 30 Magic ice disarm sword" (remember- if you don't like the combo spells/effects you would not have to use them as your character. Someone else might. :thumbsup

 

[Draven]

Re: What's wrong with "I call forth a flame bolt.20 magic fl

I like it when they just call the effect. You got hit with a gorram white packet, I KNOW its magic.

I also like Mike V's solution

Considering that white packet could actually be a "5 Flame" which isn't technically magic (evocation) but is elemental... :wacko:

If you call 5 Flame with a white packet, I call flub and I'll lend you a blue.

Elemental calls use white packets, but "Elemental" is always part of the verbal, too. So if "Elemental" or "Arcane" isn't used, it's Magic. Or maybe some weird special effect.

 

[MaxIrons]

Re: What's wrong with "I call forth a flame bolt.20 magic fl

I like it when they just call the effect. You got hit with a gorram white packet, I KNOW its magic.

I also like Mike V's solution

Considering that white packet could actually be a "5 Flame" which isn't technically magic (evocation) but is elemental... :wacko:

If you call 5 Flame with a white packet, I call flub and I'll lend you a blue.

Elemental calls use white packets, but "Elemental" is always part of the verbal, too. So if "Elemental" or "Arcane" isn't used, it's Magic. Or maybe some weird special effect.

Wait, I'm confused. I thought Blue was arrows/bolts, Orange was alchemy and everything else was... well... everything else. I see my error on the 5 Flame needing the elemental call to be elemental (damn writing at work on breaks) and concede it handily, but I... oh... 5 Flame from a Elemental Blade Bow. Ouch. I think I broke my brain. I go sit down for a moment. :zonks:

 

[Undrask]

Re: What's wrong with "I call forth a flame bolt.20 magic fl

I like it when they just call the effect. You got hit with a gorram white packet, I KNOW its magic.

I also like Mike V's solution

Considering that white packet could actually be a "5 Flame" which isn't technically magic (evocation) but is elemental... :wacko:

You and the other guy both have good points!