Gnomish Magics

by **Handeath** Sun Jan 02, 2011 6:13 am

First topic message reminder :

INTRODUCTION:
When I think of the combat classes, I think of different mind sets: the meleer, a direct person who lets his actions do the talking. The ranger, a quick thinking fighter who gets out of harm’s way, not without letting a few shots loose first! Finally, the mage, a well planned individual who uses his strategy and conditions to his advantage. A Modern mage uses a combination of binding, curses, and combat spells to his advantage. An Ancient mage chooses his target well to cause as much devastation as possible. A Lunar mage figures out who needs his/her help the most and how to help that person (more on that later).

In “The Eyes of Glouphrie,” we see the sly Glouphrie create an illusion of an army to defeat the Goblin army during the 4th Age. In “Nomad’s Requiem,” Nomad uses mines to attack you. What if we could combine those kinds of spells? The ingenuity of the gnomes would really shine in this spellbook!

TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Key: Topic – (Page Number, Post Number - Page Number, Post Number)
Introduction and Table of Contents – (1, 1)
Gnomish Spellbook – (1, 2 – 2, 2)
“Justification for a 4th Spellbook” – (2, 3 – 2, 6)
FAQ – (2, 7)
Miscellaneous – (2, 8)

by **Handeath** Wed Jan 12, 2011 12:52 pm

I bet most discoveries were made while rambling: I don't mind. Smile

We could refer to Hazelmere (or notes left by him) on how one would use the Anima Mundi for the Anima spells.

Some illusion practice could come from exploring the Poison Waste as well.

The skill spells could come from a new character. As they mostly surround on survival (help craft, resist climate effects, feed pets) a member of the 7th Squad would be suitable.

by **Gladzosaurus Rex** Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:22 pm

Handeath wrote:
Gladzosaurus Rex wrote:I won't disagree with your assessment on p2p, but I mistook it for a spelling error as that part of the discussion was aimed at the f2p side of things. My apologies. Where magic is not underpowered and where a damage boost of four would have a tremendous and negative impact on the triangle.

Low Max, low speed, no KO. Magic may be accurate, but it doesn't outweigh the weaknesses. A damage boost to all Modern Spells, and one that doesn't make it dominate, doesn't destroy the triangle.

Don't forget by far the highest consistency in damage output, there, as well as the highest accuracy on everything but full dragonhide (as half my opponents are in negative magic defence bonus, the other half wearing hide tops and staffs giving them no more than +5 defence, against a small 150+ versus melee and ranged).

What exactly do you think of when you're talking about F2p pvp? As it's kinda safe to say I don't relate to it at all and its kinda the only thing on rs I do.

As for the P2p balancing thing, I'd just like to note that I'm talking about multi PvP, not clan Pvp as the latter is equally present in single. Nobody but the unprepared uses normal magics because there's no area of effect damage in there, and currently the best way to defend against ancients is to spread and make use of the terrain, precisely the thing that is utilized by this magic. Yeah an ancient mage may on average do more damage, but as these spells last a few sensible mages can quickly turn part of the battlefield in a minefield you can't navigate by run without taking heavy damage.

Because this will deter movement, you can expect ancient mages to do more damage on average when aided with this backup than without, thereby making up for the difference that is five people not in ancients but in gnomish. And I fear, far make up for it as once your window of opportunity is gone, you're again frozen for a good amount of time while the minefield will get constantly renewed.

Your suggestions make sense when skilling or Pure 1v1 dming in edge is concerned, but there's more to the game than just that.

by **Handeath** Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:19 am

Gladzosaurus Rex wrote:Don't forget by far the highest consistency in damage output, there, as well as the highest accuracy on everything but full dragonhide (as half my opponents are in negative magic defence bonus, the other half wearing hide tops and staffs giving them no more than +5 defence, against a small 150+ versus melee and ranged).

What exactly do you think of when you're talking about F2p pvp? As it's kinda safe to say I don't relate to it at all and its kinda the only thing on rs I do.

You say Magic in F2P is devasting, but you don't note its flaws. I know Magic is really accurate and the damage boost was to confirm the Modern Spellbook's identity. However, I didn't want to overpower Magic so its max hit is only barely above that of Ranged. 40 damage won't screw up the triangle.

Firstly, you can see the traps lay in front of you, as long as you keep your wits about you. Secondly, you say people will think of countermeasures for Gnomish friendly fire, but not Ancient and Gnomish clan? Here's one, spread out, range, and advance slowly. Running will cause you to hit a few traps (but not many as other people will too), standing IN GROUPS will cause many people to take large amounts of damage and be weakened. However, this strategy will keep your army from being decimated by Ancient while not setting off many Gnomish traps. Warriors will suffer because they will have to get in close while running into Traps and being debuffed (and damaged), but they are weak to Magic to begin with. You keep saying this isn't balanced, but you neglected Ranged in your arguement, the combat style that can attack well without moving.

If you still think this isn't balanced, suggest how I can fix it. Otherwise, stop posting please so Dark and I can collaborate and other people can comment. You are the only person who has commented on this idea on the RSOF and on the TSS who has stated this spellbook is overpowered for this reason. In this instance, I don't think your arguement is well grounded.

...

Now I feel mean. Cookie for your troubles? Meow

by **Gladzosaurus Rex** Thu Jan 13, 2011 9:58 am

You say Magic in F2P is devasting, but you don't note its flaws. I know Magic is really accurate and the damage boost was to confirm the Modern Spellbook's identity. However, I didn't want to overpower Magic so its max hit is only barely above that of Ranged. 40 damage won't screw up the triangle.

The things you mentioned are characteristics, not flaws. Because of those magic is in balance in our fights, though I could actually argue it to be on top already compared to melee and ranged. There's simply no reason to up the damage just because you've given some odd reason of existence to the spell book Tongue

Triangle is all and nice in theory, but the logic doesn't mean squat in P2p multi. Not if you can expect 15 melee'ers with all sorts of different nice weapons, 15 rangers variously using equipment ranging from chinchompa's to dragon (e) bolts to msb to an odd 20 mages doing mostly ancients. Now all those people brought at least 2 styles and armor for protection against all three. It's chaos and the only way to prevent you from being at a disadvantage trianglewise- so lets forget about it. Again, what exactly do you envision of PvP?

And as for suggestions, I would start by increasing the rune costs, decrease the area of effect or increase distance, and by adding limitations.
Not going to go into details as ultimately they don't mean anything; if and if it's adopted you'll be lucky to recognize it back and they most certainly will use their own views on levels, power and costs. I'm merely pointing out on which relative scale it should be limited.

by **Handeath** Thu Jan 13, 2011 11:33 am

Handeath wrote:This should be damage spellbook with the highest max hits. (A Charged God Spell can hit as high as Ice Barrage.) Thus the max hits need to increase...

I increased the Max Hit so the Modern Spellbook wouldn't be considered the worst and fall into disuse.

If a Gnomish Mage tries to hybrid and achieves a Magic Attack Bonus below 45, he might keep hitting himself.

Also a Trap costs 1 Nature and 3 Chaos, a Fence costs 2 Nature and 5 Chaos, a Mine costs 1 Nature 4 Death, and a Wall costs 2 Nature and 7 Deaths, all including other Runes. I'd say the cost is fine. As for a range of casting, I say 7 squares, what do you say?

by **Gladzosaurus Rex** Thu Jan 13, 2011 11:05 pm

Disuse? Half the runescape population has access only to that spellbook, the only entire runescape population uses the spellbook to train and by far the majority is on it when they want to use non-PvP damage, skills-related magics or teleports. There's plenty of use for it already because the spells are suited for mass PvM damage with their relatively lower rune cost.

I'd also personally name ancients the damage spellbook, if you would theorize them having pre-determined functions at all. Tongue

45 magic bonus can be achieved by flipping on a mystic top and bottom, or by a sole ahrims top if amulets and other gear is chosen wisely. It's not all that much Sigh

.
I'd add bloods or souls in exchange for a couple of those deaths actually, but it wouldn't matter much. Nor if the range of casting was a square more or less Tongue

I think it's far more useful to decide whether possible (I'll give you that, of course) imbalance should be combated by tweaking rune costs, range or something else rather than deciding how many squares would prove the most balanced.
That said, I'd personally lean in favour of rune costs and restricted spell impact, rather than restricting the range of required gear bonuses to cast them :$

by **Handeath** Fri Jan 14, 2011 11:40 am

I've already stated my views on Ancients and Modern and that's how see them. Wink

As for rebalancing, I think rebalancing the range would be the way to go, I think 4 Deaths per spell is fair. But what do you mean by restricted impact?

by **Handeath** Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:37 am

Bump, I guess.

by **Gladzosaurus Rex** Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:26 pm

Think I missed it. Impact as in both power, secondary effect, deployment and overall effectiveness here. But meh, I think whatever amount of runes we come up with is useless since jagex will adapt it to their own view anyway.

by **Handeath** Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:39 pm

BOOM, Gnome quest! Grin

by **The Empty Lord** Sat May 07, 2011 11:13 am

I dislike that the minimap should be used to cast some of the spells. Purely because the minimap can be difficult to achieve grid-scale accuracy. Also, orange dots have been used by Clans, so you might need a different colour.

Irrelevant, but it just reminded me of when pets used to have a dot. *sniffles*

Also, I like cake without frosting. Wink

Also, I'm somewhat concerned as to the efficiency of the spells between PVE and PVP. It's possibly too easy to bait NPCs into traps, whereas players would inevitably avoid them (without cloaks).

I suggested how the existing spellbooks could be modified to be more style based.

I didn't catch this. I don't know if I missed a post, or something. I saw your posts where you buffed the spellbooks, but I didn't see how they were made more style based.

by **Handeath** Sat May 07, 2011 11:23 am

I think that this spellbook needs accuracy to be effective, going by the minimap isn't perfect, but it's better than the game screen (you can also use the game screen to cast traps).

How about Black Dots?

by **The Empty Lord** Sun May 08, 2011 1:36 am

Do they need dots?

by **Handeath** Sun May 08, 2011 3:08 am

Yes, as they are dangerous. I guess that they may weaken this spellbook, but it's potentially very powerful already.

What do you tjhink of the Justification section?

by **The Empty Lord** Sun May 08, 2011 4:33 am

Seems okay. Wink

You didn't address this bit, though. Tongue

Also, I'm somewhat concerned as to the efficiency of the spells between PVE and PVP. It's possibly too easy to bait NPCs into traps, whereas players would inevitably avoid them (without cloaks).

by **Handeath** Sun May 08, 2011 10:22 am

PvE would mostly be having the enemy chase you into a trap. Since players are a bit more clever, one could set up more powerful combos by following his target's movement powers.

by Sponsored content

Gnomish Magics

Gnomish Magics

Re: Gnomish Magics

Re: Gnomish Magics

Re: Gnomish Magics

Re: Gnomish Magics

Re: Gnomish Magics

Re: Gnomish Magics

Re: Gnomish Magics

Re: Gnomish Magics

Re: Gnomish Magics

Re: Gnomish Magics

Re: Gnomish Magics

Re: Gnomish Magics

Re: Gnomish Magics

Re: Gnomish Magics

Re: Gnomish Magics

Re: Gnomish Magics

Re: Gnomish Magics