Gems, fatigue and increasing magic levels

[Kalin]

No, I think in the above case, that particular Air mage will explode in blood... What they are saying is that no one particular spell will cost more than 200 fatigue, even if it is listed as 700. In your example, your mage would end up at 299 fatique (assuming 0 encumberance), and would take 99 damage.

The reason casting fatigue seems to "stop" at 200 is because everying above 200 automatically goes to your health.

[Graeme Dice]

Mages _cannot_ cause damage to themselves by casting spells. They will never push their own fatigue beyond 200. Whether this enables the mage to cast the spell as Corwin describes or not, is something that I've never been able to figure out, and the manual doesn't do a particularly good job of describing the behaviour.

[Corwin]

Kalin said:
No, I think in the above case, that particular Air mage will explode in blood... What they are saying is that no one particular spell will cost more than 200 fatigue, even if it is listed as 700. In your example, your mage would end up at 299 fatique (assuming 0 encumberance), and would take 99 damage.

The reason casting fatigue seems to "stop" at 200 is because everying above 200 automatically goes to your health.

What Graeme said.

Everybody keep repeating the phrase from manual that "mages can not go over 200 fatique in casting the spell".

But that phrase could be understood in two different ways.

What other people on this thread said earlier, that based on the things they observed in the game, that phrase means that the 700 fatique spell will be cast as long as mage have minimum needed level and will have enough gems, but the fatique will be capped at 200. Even more so, poster said he saw mage casting such spell even if mage's initial fatique is none zero.

What you mean is that mage will refuse to cast spell, since it would put him over 200 fatique.

See the difference?

I am trying to figure out who is right here, since either you or the previous poster must be mistaken, since these statements directly contradict each other.

[Meglobob]

[/quote] But that phrase could be understood in two different ways.

What other people on this thread said earlier, that based on the things they observed in the game, that phrase means that the 700 fatique spell will be cast as long as mage have minimum needed level and will have enough gems, but the fatique will be capped at 200. Even more so, poster said he saw mage casting such spell even if mage's initial fatique is none zero.

What you mean is that mage will refuse to cast spell, since it would put him over 200 fatique.

See the difference?

I am trying to figure out who is right here, since either you or the previous poster must be mistaken, since these statements directly contradict each other.

[/quote]

I would love to know the answer to this as well.

Given that people are saying 2 different things. Is there any possiblity of some spells being bugged and others not, ie...both is the case, 1 spell with 500 fatigue can be cast just taking you to 200 fatigue, well another will be refused?

[Fate]

What "the people" have apparently concluded (looking at the threads) is that no spell will ADD more than 200 fatigue. So a 0-fatigue mage can cast ANY spell (barring gem/level costs) and come out with only 200 fatigue, without using any communions or extra gems.

However, if your mage has 10 fatigue, and they cast a spell listed as >= 200 fatigue, they will take 10 damage and be at 200 fatigue (or ignore the order if the AI decides it isn't worth it).

To address on final question: the meaning of fatigue cost over 200 is twofold. (1) it effects the minimum number of gems required to cast. Every 100 fatigue points mean that that spell requires 1 gem -not including gems used to increase level/reduce fatigue. (2) it effects how much you have to work to reduce it to a manageable level. For example, say you want the same mage to cast two spells with >= 200 fatigue. You will most likely need to reduce the fatigue caused by the first spell enough to keep your mage conscious (<100) and the cost of the second one enough to not kill them and get the AI to approve it (<200, probably more).

And, to recap the use of gems in battles, the mage may only use 1 gem per level for ANYTHING. A mage may only increase their level by 1 to cast a spell just out of their reach, along with the gems required to cast the spell AND any "fake" levels which reduce fatigue. The equation for fatigue accumulated by any single spell is the Amount Listed / (1 + the EXTRA levels the mage has, including "fake" levels), capped at an INCREASE of 200.

[Graeme Dice]

Fate said:
However, if your mage has 10 fatigue, and they cast a spell listed as >= 200 fatigue, they will take 10 damage and be at 200 fatigue (or ignore the order if the AI decides it isn't worth it).

Except that the mage won't behave as you just described. The spell either won't be cast, or the mage will end up at 200 fatigue without suffering any hitpoint damage. The issue is which of these two takes place. Mages never cause themselves damage by casting spells.

[RamsHead]

I just ran a test. I had a level three mage with a small army attack an independent group. The battle took place with a magic scale of 3, that's 30% reduction of fatigue. I had the mage cast legion of steel and invulnerability, which put him up to around 40 fatigue. Then I had him cast curse of stones, a level 3 spell with 300 fatigue and requires 3 gems, which the mage had. He cast the spell and had 200 fatigue. 30% off of 300 is 210. The fact that he cast it despite that he should have gone over 200 seems to prove that a mage could cast a very fatiguing spell at 99 and only be at 200 after it is cast. Of course, other tests by people to support this finding would be appreciated.