Liberal Arts Major
For the record, there are ten alignments:
Fire
Water
Electricity
Ice
Nature
Darkness
Light
Steel
Twilight
Wind
As it stands now, phantoms are unaffected by steel-aligned spells and that's it.
___
~ Ogordemir ~
"The sciences have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." ~ H.P Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu
Editor
I HATE games where it's like, "WELL. Here's an enemy who's made of Darkness. All your attacks do 1 damage to him. Go level up something with Light attacks or never progress again."
---
"There's a pony in the shop, but don't buy it. It might do something unfortunate to you." ~from the first Summoner's Seal topic
Liberal Arts Major
___
~ Ogordemir ~
"The sciences have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." ~ H.P Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu
Editor
---
"There's a pony in the shop, but don't buy it. It might do something unfortunate to you." ~from the first Summoner's Seal topic
Liberal Arts Major
This is true. I think I'm going to have to take elements into account when designing races, e.g. angels may be immune to damage from light spells (but can still be healed or buffed) and so on. Should enchantments have elemental alignments? Given that spells have them it would seem to make sense. Plus it would let me keep demons from getting cursed and so on.
I'm not even sure how that would work if they had elemental alignments.
All of the classes I listed are slated to be PC races, though the majority aren't easily obtainable.
Another thing I was considering was having classes align with certain elements (but not in such a way as to prevent, say, an angel from being a darkness-aligned class) and then in some way allowing that class to access spells aligned with their elements that aren't already part of their class. Thoughts?
___
~ Ogordemir ~
"The sciences have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." ~ H.P Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu
Editor
I'd say: yes, but only if it really works with the flavor. It makes sense that a curse would be dark aligned, or that a buff that sets the target's weapon aflame would be fire aligned; however, I'd be against standard buffs having any element.
Or, to summarize: quirky, flavorful enchantments = element; standard, utility enchantments = no element
All of the classes I listed are slated to be PC races, though the majority aren't easily obtainable.
I should rephrase. I'm not sure how elements would work for playable versions of those races, but I think it would be relatively easy to implement on a case-by-case basis for enemy versions of those races. So if you play an elf, I'm not sure what that implies, elementally, but if I get into a battle with an Elvish Treemancer, it would make sense for fire to be more effective against him than, say, water.
Another thing I was considering was having classes align with certain elements (but not in such a way as to prevent, say, an angel from being a darkness-aligned class) and then in some way allowing that class to access spells aligned with their elements that aren't already part of their class. Thoughts?
That sounds very promising, but I can't really judge it without seeing it in action...
---
"There's a pony in the shop, but don't buy it. It might do something unfortunate to you." ~from the first Summoner's Seal topic
Liberal Arts Major
Should enchantments have elemental alignments? Given that spells have them it would seem to make sense. Plus it would let me keep demons from getting cursed and so on.
I agree with Kenri's statement on this.
+++
"Enough is enough! I have had it with these monkey-fighting snakes on this Monday-to-Friday plane!" - TV Edited Snakes on a Plane
Liberal Arts Major
Fun tidbit: buffs are not technically enchantments. A spell that nukes all enchantments will still leave all the buffs intact and vice-versa. This wasn't done on purpose, though, it's just how I decided to code things in. Should this be changed? I personally enjoy the added design space.
In light of that, buffs could also have alignments. In the case of the fire sword, depending upon the actual effect of the spell, there would be only a buff or both a buff and an enchantment. If something were immune to fire enchantments it would be kind of silly not to enchant it but to buff it anyway.
Speaking of which, what if you have a sword that's immune to fire? Should items have alignments?
So if you play an elf, I'm not sure what that implies, elementally, but if I get into a battle with an Elvish Treemancer, it would make sense for fire to be more effective against him than, say, water.
Well a PC elf would probably not be affected by elements, but a PC angel would in some cases. So a case-by-case basis for elements works with PCs as well as it does with NPCs.
Pokemon-ish system sounds good to me.
What appears to be shaping up is a more flavor-based version of the Pokemon system, which I much prefer. However, I might trip over the Rock-Paper-Scissors line Kenri brought up earlier with this. It makes sense for an angel to shrug off, say, Big Purifying Burst of Light without taking any damage, but does that undermine the gameplay? I would assume that having four PCs would alleviate that problem. Did anyone especially hate the fact that mounted characters would have non-ranged attacks aimed at their mounts instead of them?
That sounds very promising, but I can't really judge it without seeing it in action...
Well there isn't really any substance to the idea yet. Suggestions?
___
~ Ogordemir ~
"The sciences have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." ~ H.P Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu
Editor
Huh. I think I must have known that at some point, but...
Anyway, it doesn't really change my point, and I see no reason to change it if it's worked so far. Though it is slightly odd, game mechanics-wise...
In light of that, buffs could also have alignments. In the case of the fire sword, depending upon the actual effect of the spell, there would be only a buff or both a buff and an enchantment. If something were immune to fire enchantments it would be kind of silly not to enchant it but to buff it anyway.
Indeed. I'd say in that case, both the buff and the enchantment should be fire aligned.
Referring to standard buffs, I meant more stuff like, I dunno, let's say "Haste", which raises speed by some arbitrary amount. There's no reason to give that an element; that would only needlessly complicate a spell that should be simple.
Speaking of which, what if you have a sword that's immune to fire? Should items have alignments?
I'd say yes, especially in terms of certain weapons dealing elemental damage and certain armor providing elemental protection. Not sure about items themselves having immunities, but if it made sense in flavor I wouldn't be against it or anything. However, going overboard on this kind of thing could very possibly make the game unmanageable, so I think non-elemental stuff would have to be more common than elemental stuff.
Well a PC elf would probably not be affected by elements, but a PC angel would in some cases. So a case-by-case basis for elements works with PCs as well as it does with NPCs.
Again, I'm not really sure how this would work in motion, but I'm not opposed to it in concept.
However, I might trip over the Rock-Paper-Scissors line Kenri brought up earlier with this. It makes sense for an angel to shrug off, say, Big Purifying Burst of Light without taking any damage, but does that undermine the gameplay?
I really have no problem with immunities in the majority of cases ("Immunity to damage" is one that really pisses me off for obvious reasons, but since "damage" isn't an element here I don't think I have to worry about it), but a lot of games see elemental rock-paper-scissors and instead of saying, "Let's make an Angel that's immune to Light!", they say "Let's make an Angel that's immune to everything except Darkness!"
Did anyone especially hate the fact that mounted characters would have non-ranged attacks aimed at their mounts instead of them?
...I didn't even notice this. >_> So I guess that's a no.
Well there isn't really any substance to the idea yet. Suggestions?
I'm not sure. I think there would have to be certain restrictions applied, like learning spells at a level penalty (for example, a spell might say "Paladins: lvl10, Light Users: lvl25"), or requiring a certain tier to learn certain spells (for example, a Cleric can't learn Paladin spells, but a Matriarch can), or maybe a restriction on how many out-of-class spells you can learn, or a restriction on the number of classes from which you can learn out-of-class spells, or having a new stat - let's call it Synergy - and if Holy Explosion required a Light Synergy of 45, you'd be unable to learn it until you raised your Light Synergy... which you would do somehow, I hadn't thought that far ahead. <_< You could even implement a sort of mentor/student relationship where a Cleric could learn Light aligned Paladin spells more easily (or even only) if a Paladin who knows that spell is in the party. And... ow. My head is starting to hurt from all the possibilities!
On the other hand, doing this would potentially throw class balance into the gutter, especially since I can see casters (who would probably have more elemental spells and be more likely to have an elemental alignment themselves) quickly surpassing non-casters.
---
"There's a pony in the shop, but don't buy it. It might do something unfortunate to you." ~from the first Summoner's Seal topic
Editor
Ow.
I don't even want to think about that, to be honest.
---
"There's a pony in the shop, but don't buy it. It might do something unfortunate to you." ~from the first Summoner's Seal topic
Liberal Arts Major
Hate? No. Question it? Yes.
+++
"Enough is enough! I have had it with these monkey-fighting snakes on this Monday-to-Friday plane!" - TV Edited Snakes on a Plane
Liberal Arts Major
It works that way because buffing by spells uses the same functions as buffing by items.
that would only needlessly complicate a spell that should be simple.
This is true; there would have to be a clear connection with an element to justify extending alignment to an enchantment or especially a buff. Field enchantments like Inferno or whatever it's called are clear-cut examples of things that do qualify.
However, going overboard on this kind of thing could very possibly make the game unmanageable, so I think non-elemental stuff would have to be more common than elemental stuff.
There are a few unmanageable elements to be incorporated into the game as it is, however, magical enchanted element items with resistance to certain elements are going to be rare enough that it won't seriously matter. You certainly won't be able to buy them in an NPC store.
I don't even want to think about that, to be honest.
If you're concerned about immunities to steel etc. it should be noted that, despite being spread across most of the unenlightened classes (soldiers, warriors, etc.), only 15.26% of spells are steel. It's the catch-all element for things like Smash that don't really fit anywhere else.
who would probably have more elemental spells and be more likely to have an elemental alignment themselves
Yes, as noted, steel is an element, and a lot of classes would be aligned with it. But there's some variety: warriors would be aligned to fire and steel; soldiers to light and steel; etc. Some classes would have many more alignments than others, however. Spellbinders for instance would be aligned with fire, water, electricity, wind, and nature.
learning spells at a level penalty (for example, a spell might say "Paladins: lvl10, Light Users: lvl25")
I'm not sure think this is a high enough set-back for giving e.g. all light-aligned classes access to every light spell. It's especially problematic because it gives a whole series of classes easy access to healing and revival spells that they probably shouldn't have lying around.
or requiring a certain tier to learn certain spells (for example, a Cleric can't learn Paladin spells, but a Matriarch can)
This probably won't work.
or maybe a restriction on how many out-of-class spells you can learn
This is good. There's going to be a restriction on the number of spells a character can learn (between seven and eleven, I haven't really settled) and this fits that spirit.
or a restriction on the number of classes from which you can learn out-of-class spells
This would be pretty complicated.
or having a new stat - let's call it Synergy - and if Holy Explosion required a Light Synergy of 45, you'd be unable to learn it until you raised your Light Synergy... which you would do somehow, I hadn't thought that far ahead.
This is an interesting idea, but it really depends on how it's implemented. Perhaps casting spells aligned in those elements would raise your "synergy"? And instead of requiring a different "synergy" for every spell, maybe there should just be a threshold after which you've "mastered" the element - mostly because adding yet another figure to the potential spell requirement list would be a pain to keep track of.
You could even implement a sort of mentor/student relationship where a Cleric could learn Light aligned Paladin spells more easily (or even only) if a Paladin who knows that spell is in the party.
This is interesting, but due to the tavern it might be odd from a conceptual point of view. Here's what I'm thinking: how about we do the "synergy" thing with a threshold and allow only, say, one off-class spell per character, but in order to access something other than a first- or second-class spell you would need to already have a character who knows that spell in your party or at the tavern. So let's say you have a Patriarch with light "synergy" all maxed out or whatever. You would have access to all the light spells learnable by the 34 first and second classes, but if you wanted to teach it some light-aligned Paladin spell you would need a Paladin hanging around somewhere who already knows it. It's kind of complicated, but it seems to balance out fairly well. I'm open to more suggestions though.
Question it? Yes.
I think I'm going to eliminate it (for mounts, not entirely). In a sort of related topic, how would you represent flying things? My current idea is to have flying things only be able to hit nonflying things with ranged attacks and vice-versa. The vice-versa makes conceptual sense because you can't exactly charge at something that you can't reach, and the restriction on fliers is put there for balance, not because a flier can't swoop down and eat you. Perhaps I should make it so fliers are grounded for the duration of a turn in which they use a non-ranged attack to hit a non-flier instead.
___
~ Ogordemir ~
"The sciences have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." ~ H.P Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu
Liberal Arts Major
The second notable change involves race-based damage bonuses, which are exactly what they sound like. Certain races are connected with certain spell alignments, so when a character casts an aligned spell, any damage that spell would have done is increased by a small percentage. These percentages and alignments are not completely set in stone, and input is welcome as usual.
I forgot I did this. Is it a good idea or should I nix it? It makes sense for things like angels but doesn't make any sense at all for humans or gnomes or whatever.
___
~ Ogordemir ~
"The sciences have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." ~ H.P Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu
Editor
This is true; there would have to be a clear connection with an element to justify extending alignment to an enchantment or especially a buff. Field enchantments like Inferno or whatever it's called are clear-cut examples of things that do qualify.
There are a few unmanageable elements to be incorporated into the game as it is, however, magical enchanted element items with resistance to certain elements are going to be rare enough that it won't seriously matter. You certainly won't be able to buy them in an NPC store.
Works for me.
If you're concerned about immunities to steel etc. it should be noted that, despite being spread across most of the unenlightened classes (soldiers, warriors, etc.), only 15.26% of spells are steel. It's the catch-all element for things like Smash that don't really fit anywhere else.
Yes, as noted, steel is an element, and a lot of classes would be aligned with it. But there's some variety: warriors would be aligned to fire and steel; soldiers to light and steel; etc. Some classes would have many more alignments than others, however. Spellbinders for instance would be aligned with fire, water, electricity, wind, and nature.
Ah, I see. Good to hear.
However, a greater concern: weapons with elements. Is every sword going to end up being the Steel element, for example? Because that would make sense, but could potentially be annoying.
This is an interesting idea, but it really depends on how it's implemented. Perhaps casting spells aligned in those elements would raise your "synergy"? And instead of requiring a different "synergy" for every spell, maybe there should just be a threshold after which you've "mastered" the element - mostly because adding yet another figure to the potential spell requirement list would be a pain to keep track of.
Makes sense.
This is interesting, but due to the tavern it might be odd from a conceptual point of view. Here's what I'm thinking: how about we do the "synergy" thing with a threshold and allow only, say, one off-class spell per character, but in order to access something other than a first- or second-class spell you would need to already have a character who knows that spell in your party or at the tavern. So let's say you have a Patriarch with light "synergy" all maxed out or whatever. You would have access to all the light spells learnable by the 34 first and second classes, but if you wanted to teach it some light-aligned Paladin spell you would need a Paladin hanging around somewhere who already knows it. It's kind of complicated, but it seems to balance out fairly well. I'm open to more suggestions though.
I like it. It puts a pretty big restriction on when you can learn out-of-class spells, to prevent you from getting powerful spells way too early and breaking the game. It's also pretty simple flavor-wise: classes that master an element have enough knowledge about it to learn simple spells of that element, but they're still gonna need some kind of training to learn more advanced spells.
I forgot I did this. Is it a good idea or should I nix it? It makes sense for things like angels but doesn't make any sense at all for humans or gnomes or whatever.
I'd say this should either be:
-Removed.
-Balanced by, say, giving angels a slight Light power-up and a slight Darkness power-down, so that humans aren't just never picked for not having this.
-Balanced in some other way unrelated to this, again so that humans aren't just never picked.
The thing is, it makes sense in flavor and from a game mechanics perspective, but keeping it would just add another thing to balance. So I'm really fine either way.
---
"There's a pony in the shop, but don't buy it. It might do something unfortunate to you." ~from the first Summoner's Seal topic
Liberal Arts Major
I would sincerely hope there would be some elemental weapons thrown in randomly, but a simple solution to this lies within weapon enchantments from a specific magic class to make it useful to keep that class along. But yeah.
I forgot I did this. Is it a good idea or should I nix it? It makes sense for things like angels but doesn't make any sense at all for humans or gnomes or whatever.
Well, Gnomes could be given better Earth control or something... but yeah, like Kenri said this would need to be balanced with drawbacks or something.
+++
"Enough is enough! I have had it with these monkey-fighting snakes on this Monday-to-Friday plane!" - TV Edited Snakes on a Plane
Liberal Arts Major
It would only make sense for swords and a few other things. There are lots of materials - wood, cloth, other things - that items are hypothetically made out of, but currently the game only keeps track of the type of item (sword, cloak, etc.) and not its material. I don't plan to change this, nor do I plan to make items steel-aligned unless the item has good reason to be (though I can't imagine what that reason would be). The materials may be relevant to crafting though.
I like it. It puts a pretty big restriction on when you can learn out-of-class spells, to prevent you from getting powerful spells way too early and breaking the game. It's also pretty simple flavor-wise: classes that master an element have enough knowledge about it to learn simple spells of that element, but they're still gonna need some kind of training to learn more advanced spells.
Yes, after some consideration I think I'm going to go with this.
so that humans aren't just never picked for not having this.
Humans have a steel bonus despite the lack of sense-making. Every race has some kind of bonus actually; maybe I should make it so all races get, say, a 3% total strength/weakness factor, so humans could have say 2% steel and 1% nature bonuses and angels would have 6% light bonus with a 6% weakness to dark. Immunities would be counted separately.
I'm leaning toward removal, personally. This seems like needless complication.
weapon enchantments from a specific magic class to make it useful to keep that class along.
I suppose Spellcrafters could do this but I'm not yet sold on the idea.
Earth control
Nature, man!
So... flying?
___
~ Ogordemir ~
"The sciences have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." ~ H.P Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu
Editor
It seems like the majority of the weapons for unenlightened classes would end up being Steel element, is all. As well as most kinds of heavy armor. So anything that beats Steel would theoretically end up overpowered.
Unless the items inexplicably weren't Steel aligned even though they're, flavor wise, made of Steel, but that has the problem of being confusing. <_<
So... flying?
Oh, right, flying.
Uh.
How common would flying things be? Because if they're too common, I can see not being able to hit them being pretty annoying.
I do like the being grounded for a turn thing.
---
"There's a pony in the shop, but don't buy it. It might do something unfortunate to you." ~from the first Summoner's Seal topic
Liberal Arts Major
Steel is a catch-all element. Steel spells basically involve hitting people with a weapon of some sort. Archer spells for instance are more likely to be wind-aligned than steel-aligned. Of the unenlightened classes, the lion's share of steel spells go to Pikemen and Soldiers.
How common would flying things be? Because if they're too common, I can see not being able to hit them being pretty annoying.
Relatively rare, basically just angels, birds, dragons, that sort of thing. Faeries could fly but since they're going to be really tiny they can't really get out of the way of anything by virtue of their flight, so they won't technically fly. There may also be flying mounts.
___
~ Ogordemir ~
"The sciences have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." ~ H.P Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu
Legend
Editor
Let me rephrase:
-I understood you to say that elementally aligned items would be rare.
-Steel is an element.
-Based on the last version of SS, the vast majority of weapons for unenlightened classes should, in theory, be made of Steel, or some sort of Steel-like substance.
-Will these weapons be Steel aligned? If not, how does that make sense? If so, how does that work, balance-wise?
I might just be misinterpreting your answers, but it doesn't seem like I've gotten a straight answer to that. <_<;;
Relatively rare, basically just angels, birds, dragons, that sort of thing. Faeries could fly but since they're going to be really tiny they can't really get out of the way of anything by virtue of their flight, so they won't technically fly. There may also be flying mounts.
I can see this being very annoying/potentially extremely broken for playable classes, but if it's not I don't have any problems with it, personally.
---
"There's a pony in the shop, but don't buy it. It might do something unfortunate to you." ~from the first Summoner's Seal topic
Liberal Arts Major
Mmmmm... rock-paper-scissors.
-Will these weapons be Steel aligned? If not, how does that make sense? If so, how does that work, balance-wise?
The element "steel" doesn't refer to the actual metal, just as "nature" doesn't refer to anything in particular but covers things like earthquakes and plants and whatever (except wind, that has its own type) and "twilight" doesn't refer to any actual atmospheric and temporal conditions (it's the catch-all element for random magic).
I can see this being very annoying/potentially extremely broken for playable classes, but if it's not I don't have any problems with it, personally.
42.63% of spells so far are ranged. 31% of steel-aligned spells are ranged. Soldiers have Incinerate if nothing else.
___
~ Ogordemir ~
"The sciences have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." ~ H.P Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu
Editor
Ah, I see. That makes more sense, then. >_>
42.63% of spells so far are ranged. 31% of steel-aligned spells are ranged. Soldiers have Incinerate if nothing else.
Like I said, if it's not annoying or broken I have no problems with it.
...Hm. Certain weapons would count as ranged also, correct? (Bows, guns, possibly javelins...)
---
"There's a pony in the shop, but don't buy it. It might do something unfortunate to you." ~from the first Summoner's Seal topic
New Moderator
Yes. Though a javelin would probably be represented by a spell that unequips a spear for massive damage.
___
~ Ogordemir ~
When I feel like being awesome in another way.
Liberal Arts Major
Every good RPG needs some kind of spell or skill that enables weapons to temporarily change elements for a couple turns at least. If not giving it to a magic class to do it, then the Fighter classes for example should be given the ability to power their own swords for a few turns. Archer classes should be able to just get elemental shot skills, same with gun users. That's just traditionally how it usually works anyway and I think it'd fit. >_>
+++
"Enough is enough! I have had it with these monkey-fighting snakes on this Monday-to-Friday plane!" - TV Edited Snakes on a Plane
New Moderator
___
~ Ogordemir ~
When I feel like being awesome in another way.
Liberal Arts Major
+++
"Enough is enough! I have had it with these monkey-fighting snakes on this Monday-to-Friday plane!" - TV Edited Snakes on a Plane