The Azzain Spellbook

First topic message reminder :

Alright, well, since you all know I am overhauling my Axar series. Well, what is also included is a new spellbook, and since it is part of the series it also will be overhauled.


Where it is right now, well, let's just say it needs work and I need a little help. I'm thinking about completely redoing the spellbook and thus that would mean I am redoing the entire series after it is released. That means Quests 6, 7, 8, and 9 will have to change with its changes, especially Quests 6 and 7 where you use Azzain magic to solve puzzles.

Right now, I am aiming for every spell to have a combative AND non-combative use. It is this duality, I hope, that will really make this spellbook appealing.

Currently there are two main types of spells:

Puppet spells, which virtually make your opponent a figure of your control while ruthlessly dealing considerable damage.

Command spells, which do nasty things to your target to have the battle shift in your favor and make your target an object of your will and control

Also....

A new rune shall be used to make these dominating spells:

Duress Runes They are new runes which have the pure controlling magic of Hector. They must be used to use any spell in the Azzain Spellbook. A Duress Rune can be created by dipping an earth rune in the waters of Hector's Birthplace, with of course an adequate runecrafting level. Thak you Handeath for the idea!

As a disclaimer (I feel like this should be said soon rather than later), you have the ultimate say in these things, as it is your quest and spellbook, so I am going to continuously mold my ideas to what you say, but I will stand my ground. Expect me to shift my position often, I only want the best for this spellbook.

Dragon78114 wrote:So what you are suggesting is that this spell book should be composed of multiple amounts of spell books, rather than one? There can be various levels of spell, like in the Ancients, but even then they take upon levels and don't require a new skill.

I never said that. I simply said that each spellbook has multiple sections to it, chapters if you will. Just look at the Modern Spellbook, it has Combat, Skills, and Teleports (a chapter I never mentioned).

Dragon78114 wrote:Perhaps the role of Finisher Spells and Control spells could be blended? Three types of specific spells just to get high results seems ridiculously complicated.

They are! Sorry if what I said was a little ambiguous. Finishers are simply a kind of Control/Command spell that have levels to them while the others don't really have a progression, they all are of moderate power because many Commands are meant to be used over the course of a fight. (By levels, I've been meaning an increase in whatever, like Strike/Bolt/Blast/Wave/Surge)

Dragon78114 wrote:"But the odds are against you, Presence wears off after a certain amount of time (increasing with level) if a Puppet Spell isn't cast on the same target again within this time period. Furthermore, if the target manages to run far away from the source of the Presence (a distance increasing with level), the Presence will discharge, dealing up to a certain amount of damage (increasing with level), 60% to the caster, 40% to the escapee."

Hm... Perhaps if the puppet runs away or attacks the puppeteer and the Presence must be broken, it would cause the damage. Maybe it won't cause damage if it wears off with time; a temporary reduction to your defense level would be more logical (the magic is basically controlling the puppet with the magical energy from your soul).

Having the Presence break simply with being attacked would render the spellbook not worth it, what we have now works. But a reduction in Defence when the presence fades does make sense as you say.

Dragon78114 wrote:Perhaps there could be a Command Stillness, causing your target to freeze, or Command Self-mutilation, forcing your puppet to attack him or herself (for a limited use per time limit).

The more Commands the better!

Dragon78114 wrote:"The Skill Spells' theme should match the combat skills, controlling resources to give more rarer loot, to increase yeilds for short period of time, etc."

So these spells will have an added affect of bonus rewards from a monster/player the person killed? That would eliminate the need for a ring of wealth and totally make PvP ungodly scary and unbalanced, although it does prove an incentive to use these high-risk spells. That would be like an Imaging spell. Perhaps a return of fantastic exp for successful spells?

I was refering to Resource skills, such as Hunter, Mining, Fishing.

Dragon78114 wrote:The point about vulnerability makes sense; I was actually thinking about adding that twist in to balance the spells' massive power. Although, if I were to use these spells, I would continuously find one vs. one situations, unless you could produce group Command spells, but if you do, they'll have to be weak.

Could you elaborate?

No thank you for providing a lot of input; I really needed help with this since I'm not that good at designing spells. The next three quests are defined by the magic we're making and I need it to be as well-designed as possible. lol

"I never said that. I simply said that each spellbook has multiple sections to it, chapters if you will. Just look at the Modern Spellbook, it has Combat, Skills, and Teleports (a chapter I never mentioned)."

Okay, I see what you mean. I was gonna say...

The skill-helping spells would fall under the category of Imaging spells which manipulate the world around you in your favor. Imaging spells contain the level boosters and charge spells, whereas the "combat" branch contains all of the puppet and command/control spells.


Hm.... I like the idea. However with the sheer immense amount of new control spells this update will create, I don't know if there would be enough levels for all of these new spells (the min level is 72)!

...of course there is a sampling of the spells unlocked after the sixth quest, but the last quest will grant full access to the book.
---

To keep a person from resisting a puppet spell is a great feat because the sheer mortality of victim. However, it puts the puppeteer at a great risk because these spells are so powerful, it forces the caster only to focus on one target, leaving everyone else to attack.

But the problem arises when to avoid this attack. I know you suggested that the player can run away from the Puppeteer's grasp, but if the Puppeteer is controlling him or her, it would be very challenging, especially under the influence of a control spell. I like the idea of having it only having a timed amount before it fades, allowing the player to attack, but if that happens, then the Puppet spell would turn into a single-cast option with a cool-down time for fairness. (Of course these cool-downs will increase in length with a more advanced spell).

Nevertheless, using this dynamic it is a strictly one-on-one confrontation that I think the only way to get rid of the Puppeteer's Presence is for the Puppet to literally attack him or her, throwing the person off guard. However, it is up to the Puppeteer's quickness to prevent that from happening.

~~~

Duress runes could be tradable, like every other runes. Although Armadyl runes, I believe are kind of a waste of money. Plus, dipping some earth runes in water shouldn't be that bad, right?

Since there are only a few Puppet spells, we can have them be relatively spaced out (one every 5 levels?) but have the Command Spells be more saturated.

---

So we're now focusing on the mechanics of Puppet Spells? I can see why. But remember that this spellbook is already a hard one from the very nature of the spells: we can't put too many cons for the caster. I agree that there need to be a few ways to negate presence. Instead of a cooldown, what about recieving a scaling amount of damage renders the caster unable to forge a precense for a short amount of time?

So I was browsing through this earlier and I thought I'd wade into the conversation.

These puppet spells... I'm not fully up to speed with them, but they both intrigue and concern me.

Some questions:
Do they work in PVP?
If so, to what extent do you control your opponent? Can you control:
-What they eat/drink?
-Where they move?
-What they equip?
-Who they attack?
-Prayers?
-Whether they use specials?
And how long can you control a target for? I assume this varies with level...
What about on monsters? Do they work here?

Like I say, they interest me very much, but regretfully I haven't been following the development of this spellbook closely enough to have a valid opinion... yet...

Handeath wrote:Since there are only a few Puppet spells, we can have them be relatively spaced out (one every 5 levels?) but have the Command Spells be more saturated.

I did a little math to have an even distribution and found out that having each be 6.75 (6 or 7; mostly 7) levels apart would allow room for only 5 puppet spells, which is what I had intended on originally.

Since there are 27 levels between 72 and 99, I figured having roughly 15 to 20 Command spells would be ideal. That seems a lot but a lot of the spells would be stronger variants of previous spells.
---

Handeath wrote:So we're now focusing on the mechanics of Puppet Spells? I can see why. But remember that this spellbook is already a hard one from the very nature of the spells: we can't put too many cons for the caster. I agree that there need to be a few ways to negate presence. Instead of a cooldown, what about recieving a scaling amount of damage renders the caster unable to forge a precense for a short amount of time?

Like if the caster gets hurt x amount of damage, he or she wouldn't be able to cast the presence? Hm....

That can seriously go either way. In one way that can work but in another, it can be very crippling. Like in a heated battle, the player wouldn't have any offensive strategy and couldn't win the match. I don't know... Maybe if the person has to wait a small time period after such a huge amount of damage is received, and with the the threshold a large one (depending on the intensity of the spell), it would be a long while before the player would be immobilized.

Slayer Noir wrote:Some questions:
Do they work in PVP?

Uh...yeah!

Slayer Noir wrote: If so, to what extent do you control your opponent? Can you control:
-What they eat/drink?
-Where they move?
-What they equip?
-Who they attack?
-Prayers?
-Whether they use specials?

Puppet spells only affect the player's movement and only can be blocked with prayer upon initial attack. If you missed the timing, then the caster's presence would eat away your soul anyway. The target has control over him or herself other than his or hers movement. It would be severely slowed down. Now for the other effects can be altered with the addition of command spells which have a variety of effects on the targets.

Slayer Noir wrote:And how long can you control a target for? I assume this varies with level...
What about on monsters? Do they work here?

This is where Handeath and I have been having discrepancies over. I want a continual attack that wears off with time and/or the target hitting the caster to sever the presence. However, Handeath believes one can just run away and the presence would disappear.

I haven't really considered the effects on monsters. Perhaps just the Puppet spell would suffice for them? Obviously some of the command spells couldn't be used against them because of their PvP usage (like teleport block in the modern spellbook).

Disclaimer: I apologise in advance if anything I say here is incorrect due to misinformation. Please feel free to correct me/call me an idiot if this is the case.



Ok... This is starting to make sense.

I'm starting to see the Puppet spells as perfectly balanced rather than the opposite. So long as you can still attack, I see very little point in a mage using it on a ranger, while it would be far more potent on a meleer, the way things should be.

The mechanism. This interests me. Instead of "damage the caster to stop them casting the spell", I prefer "damage the caster and the effect wears off" exaggerates the difference this would have on a meleer compared to a ranger more. I like this purely for this reason. It also brings more strategy and skill into the spell, something that I feel RuneScape lacks.

I think this needs a cooldown. Otherwise, you could spam the spell on someone for absolutely ages. You could have other ways to stop the user spamming the spell, but players will find a way around - drain prayer and they'll use prayer potions, drain health and they'll just eat. If you want a definite way for the spell to not be cast repeatedly, don't beat around the bush and simply try and discourage it. But, is that what you want?



Again, apologies if I haven't got my facts straight. I've waded into a very technical conversation a bit late and I know that can be annoying, but I'm starting to think I don't feedback on other people's work enough, so you're stuck with me

You're fine, don't be embarrassed or shy! I need all input you can give.

Anyway, so you're idea is a compromise? Whether it is or not, I like it. Of course this "wearing off" period should be implemented, but to what extent? Maybe have the period extend with an increasing intensity of spell used?

Hm, yeah. I wanted a way to keep keep people from abusing the spells' power and my original idea was to have it drain defense level and have a defense requirement, but now reviewing it, it doesn't make any relative sense.

I do agree with the cool down to discourage abuse. Although, if I do that, then I would also have to create another type of offensive spell, which would fill the down-time. I mean, we don't want the caster defenseless for a time, right?

Wait, a cooldown on what exactly? The Puppet Spells are the only direct source of damage (some Command Spells deal damage, but only by destroying Presence).

"I do agree with the cool down to discourage abuse. Although, if I do that, then I would also have to create another type of offensive spell, which would fill the down-time. I mean, we don't want the caster defenseless for a time, right?"

The first thing I thought when I read this was "well, make a defensive spell too". Could that work?

Does the spellbook actually need another source of direct damage? The lunar spellbook doesn't have any.
How do the mechanics of damage work? Is it possible for someone to hyrbid - to cast Azzain spells but otherwise do damage with melee or ranged?
You and Han seem strongly opposed to leaving the caster unable to damage deal with spells for a while and I wanna know why before I agree or disagree with you.

In my mind, this spell book is to dominate when at the most, slightly out-numbered. This done by setting up a Presence on one target, and Commanding it to do your bidding (either reducing the damage it does, or forcing it aid you against others), all while pumping more damage into it with MAGIC attacks. When you are done, use one of the Finishing Command Spells to sever the Presence for the killing blow. Reducing the Magical DPS goes against the Duelist feel of this spellbook (not necessarily rapid fire, I think that combat style is more fitting to some other quest line).

Lunar is a Support Spellbook, and I think it needs to be reworked as such. Defencive spells are seen through the Command Spells (I suggested a few a while back.)

While I understand what you're saying, I feel that this spellbook would, in the form you desire, utterly outclass the other two offensive spellbooks. I'd hope for it to be better in some situations and worse in others.

You talk about DPS, but I feel that's not the real issue here. It's about the fact that, for a certain amount of time, your opponent can't hit you at all. And that has benefits that will offset a reduction in DPS.

If you really, really feel that the DPS is the problem here, then why not allow Puppet spells to do damage nonstop, but have a period where the caster can't control the victim? Much like ice spells have now actually. There's a period after you've been frozen once during which you can't be frozen again, but you can still be damaged by ice spells in that period. Could that work?

It appears, then, that the result of the presence, Commands, needs attention. Presence simply is a requirement to cast Commands, which can have all the cooldowns necessary. The Presence itself is a double-edged sword, breaking it deals damage to the cast. Casting a Puppet spell simply applies Presence and deals damage.

Handeath after the presence is broken, the the player would be defenseless. I think certain command spells could be used for the cooldown period after the presence is broken. Although, the vast majority of the command spells should be used whilst destroying your target with a puppet spell.


"If you really, really feel that the DPS is the problem here, then why not allow Puppet spells to do damage nonstop, but have a period where the caster can't control the victim? Much like ice spells have now actually. There's a period after you've been frozen once during which you can't be frozen again, but you can still be damaged by ice spells in that period. Could that work?"

The way puppet spells work is an initial attack, dealing damage, and then the presence affects the target, inflicting a steady stream of damage until time is up. I like that idea. The idea of the puppet spell is to forcefully gain control of the target, but that requires a massive amount of energy, therefore there is a timer on your ability to control the target…which leaves the target in a bind whether or not to sever the link, thus inflicting more damage on both parties.

Oooh… High stakes…

EDIT: I am removing Imaging spells because with both the command and puppet spells together, would over power the spellbook.

Having Puppet Spells deal a stream of damage as the presence persists, and then it wears off, leaving the mage vulnerable. I also love this idea, but two concerns:

We still need to give opponents a way to break presence, usually dealing damage to both parties in the process.

Oh no! I can't cast spells and my opponent's still ali-D CLAW CLAW CLAW! No hybriding please.

Also, how will Presence work in multicombat?

I agree, Han, I don't like the idea of people being able to hybrid. We'd need to create a mechanism that either forces people to commit to just spells, or severely punishes those that don't.

Perhaps using these spells will drain your melee and ranged stats? Is that enough of an incentive?

Hm...I didn't think about that. But hey, that is a good strategy, although, you do have a point that the person could hybrid.

People might respond by an even mor extreme measure: hybriders would stop using the spell altogether because it would give such adverse benefits. Maybe just a short strength reduction which can be easily restored?

People can whip out the dragon claws after freezing the target using an ice barrage, so I don't see how it is any different in this situation.

It's different because your spellbook is more powerful, I believe, and thus needs more limitations to bring it to balance with the ancient spellbook. If you think it's equal in power anyway, then this discussion is pointless

A short term, easily restored reduction could work, but I can imagine it being a coding nightmare (not that I'm an expert, but levels are coded to restore at a certain rate and you'd have to introduce variable rates and account for situations where different rates are acting upon the same level. Ouch)

eh; Jagex can sort it out the coding.

Then maybe reduce like one or two levels per cast? I heard that Jagex will emphasize the triangle even more and might potentially discourage hybriding with the new combat update, so maybe "a magical force prevents you from using ranged or melee attacks for x amount of time."


And you're right, this is a much more powerful spellbook than the Ancient spell book (possessing the Ancient spellbook is an indirect requirement for the Azzain spellbook anyway...because you have to solve some puzzles using Ancient Spells in Quest 6)

Technically, this spellbook is better for single combat. Ancients is better in group PvP.

It is in that sense. But used effectively, a group could be severely hindered. Because of the spells' focus of attacking a single target, the caster can focus his or her energy and time to the leader of the opposing group, whilst having the caster's friends defend him or her. Effectively destroying leadership, and making the group dynamic fail for the other team, which will then result in a catastrophic loss and a complete victory for your side.

EDIT: In response to the new additions and power to magic, people who work with ranged will therefore be in higher demand.

"I heard that Jagex will emphasize the triangle even more and might potentially discourage hybriding with the new combat update, so maybe "a magical force prevents you from using ranged or melee attacks for x amount of time.""

Suddenly, I fear all our work on balancing might be redundant. Based on what I know about the combat update, I think you're ok, that system sounds pretty foolproof for discouraging hybriding anyway.

Wait, which system...the level reduction or the "preventative force?"

so I guess we might have to postpone this discussion until Jagex can come out with the new combat update?

hm... teleportation is always an interesting topic. Since the Spellbook was created by The Azzai himself. this spellbook dates around to the time when Hallowvale was about to be attacked by the forces Zamorak.

Which means this would be near the middle of the fourth age.

What cities existed? The Azzai lived in the desert so then there must be a teleport to:

Uzer, Sophanem, ruins of a town near Uzer which was destroyed and held homage to the founder of the Elid Dungeon (it should be where the Desert Stryewyrms are), and maybe somewhere else.......

Ullek?