Simple but ironic question about gems and casting.
 

First, allow me to make sure my information is correct. You may only use as many gems on a spell as you have ranks in the path. If I have an N4 mage, he can only use 4 gems on any nature spell. If the spell requires 4 gems, he may not add any extras.

Well, the first gem you use increases your path by 1. Does this affect that rule? In the above example, an N4 mage who uses 1 nature gem becomes an N5 mage temporarily. Does this mean that he actually gets to use 5 gems, total?

I have also been wondering how multiple paths and spells work. If a spell is E1N1 and the caster is E3N3, can he use up to 6 gems, AND are his extra levels for both paths added together?

=$= Big J Money =$=

Re: Simple but ironic question about gems and cast
 

1) No.

2) I'm not sure. Test it ... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
Added advantage: You'll get to see if the mage uses the gems at all, or prefers to cast some other spell ...

Re: Simple but ironic question about gems and cast
 

Those are gems in addition to the required casting cost : if your N4 mage is casting a spell that costs 400 fatigue and 4 nature gems, he can use a total of _8_ gems : the first raises effective casting level to 5, the other 3 are used to reduce fatigue costs. (Note that otherwise, some of the spells that cost 8 gems & 800 fatigue would be essentially uncastable).

Exception is that there is a bug with lvl 1 mages : your L1 mage won't use a gem to cast a spell requiring L2, while an L2 mage will cast a L3 spell using gems.

Re: Simple but ironic question about gems and cast
 

Pretty sure mages can only expend gems from a hybrid spell's first path, as that's the one that determines a spell's effective casting level.

Re: Simple but ironic question about gems and cast
 

I thought spell fatique was actually capped at 200 fatique, and thus all the big spells are very easier to cast than thought. I haven't cast any of the big battle spells in a long time, though.

Re: Simple but ironic question about gems and cast
 

It's true, Endoperez!
Though, I think the AI will happily burn gems to bring you down to a real 200, rather than a capped 200.

Re: Simple but ironic question about gems and cast
 

Fatigue in general is capped at 200. Any fatigue beyond that causes a great deal of damage. However, this doesn't make spells easier to cast, as the mage must use enough gems to bring the fatigue down to 200.

Re: Simple but ironic question about gems and cast
 

I was under the impression that spellcasting could only bring you to the threshhold of HP damage, and only fatigue-inducing spells and negative reinvigoration could actually inflict said damage. Never once seen a mage injure himself with spellcasting, even when he was at 97 fatigue or so and cast a spell which would ordinarily bring him all the way up to 200 fatigue.
Fatigue in general is capped at 200. Any fatigue beyond that causes a great deal of damage. However, this doesn't make spells easier to cast, as the mage must use enough gems to bring the fatigue down to 200.

Re: Simple but ironic question about gems and cast
 

That's exactly what I just said. Mages cannot cast any spell that would bring them above 200 fatigue. They must use sufficient gems to bring the spell down to a fatigue level that would allow them to cast it and end up at only 200 fatigue.

Re: Simple but ironic question about gems and cast
 

I'm not sure about this, but shouldn't it be easy to test? Mod a zeroth lvl spell to cause 800 fatigue (therefor need 8 gems) and give it a cost of say eight fire magic. make a god that can cast it, then send your god vs indies w/ only eight gems. Wouldn't that decide it one way or the other?