Massive fatigue spells

[MaxWilson]

Endoperez said:
The mechanics work as was intended. It seems Kristoffer was wrong on the part where he was quoted.

<snip>

As an example:
It would be better if AI only used one gem for reducing fatigue. 400-fatigue spell cast by a mage 2 levels higher than the required level could use 4 gems and be left at 133 fatigue + enc, or 5 gems and be left at 100 fatigue + enc, but not 6 gems and be left at 80 fatigue +enc. At least there wouldn't be any confusion about the matter.

The mechanic you describe is the same one that KO says (in the quotation previous) is the way it should work. I agree. Capping at +1 is the way to go.

-Max

[thejeff]

I'm not following this:
In order to use +x extra gems, you need to be x levels over the minimum path requirements anyway, so using +x gems will merely half your fatigue (it's 1/(2*x) fatigue instead of 1/x).

Are you assuming that Number of gems required = Path required?
Consider Fog Warriors: A5, 300fat so 3 gems. An A5 caster using 4 gems (1 extra) gets 150fat. Using 5 gems (2 extra), he'd be at 100.

[mathusalem]

you can only raise your path level by 1 max using extra gem.

[Endoperez]

mathusalem said:
you can only raise your path level by 1 max using extra gem.

Please read my post on the top of this page (page 4), where I quote the manual saying that you can raise your path level by 1 for spell requirement purposes and use further gems to reduce spellcasting fatigue.

[MaxWilson]

thejeff said:
I'm not following this:
In order to use +x extra gems, you need to be x levels over the minimum path requirements anyway, so using +x gems will merely half your fatigue (it's 1/(2*x) fatigue instead of 1/x).

Are you assuming that Number of gems required = Path required?
Consider Fog Warriors: A5, 300fat so 3 gems. An A5 caster using 4 gems (1 extra) gets 150fat. Using 5 gems (2 extra), he'd be at 100.

Hmm, good point. Yes, that was my quick-and-dirty assumption, and you appear to have found a case where it might be useful to spend more.

-Max